3 ms·

Wow! This is amazing! I think the biggest answer that's in here to The Question is this one: > For me, the glaring fallacy in the argument lies in the implica

Wow! This is amazing! I think the biggest answer that's in here to The Question is this one: > For me, the glaring fallacy in the argument lies in the implication Not Determined ⇒ Random. If that was correct, then we couldn't have complexity classes like NP---we could only have BPP. The word "random" means something specific: it means you have a probability distribution over the possible choices. In computer science, we're able to talk perfectly coherently about things that are non-deterministic, but not random. ...which, in a way I don't fully grok, seems to be saying there's room between things being predicable (no free will) and random (nonsensical). Then later, this bit: > 1) We have the free will to choose in what basis to measure a quantum state. That is, at least the detector settings are not predetermined by the history of the universe. 2) Relativity gives some way for two actors (Alice and Bob) to perform a measurement such that in one reference frame Alice measures first, and in another frame Bob measures first. 3) The universe cannot coordinate the measurement outcomes by sending information faster than light. which I also still don't really understand but woah. As a contribution: I encountered an amazing demonstration of "free will", in that it was an experience you could go through, draw a box around, and write "here be free will" on the box. It's pretty simple: Think of a city, and say it's name aloud. Now consider what just happened in your mind and brain. You didn't say the name of a city you've never heard of. You could not do this; you were "not fee" to make that "choice". You (probably?) though of more than one city, and then selected on. You could do this; you were "free" to make that "choice". This demonstration doesn't really go after the question as to what you actually have that can be labeled "choice", but it really nicely draws a box for that label to be applied to.

Joeri 10y ago
The way I understand the non-determined != random argument is like this: you look to your left and will or will not find a briefcase with a million dollars. It is not determined that you will not find said briefcase, since there is a probability, no matter how small, that it has materialized there in some way. However, the presence of the briefcase is not random, because there is not an even probability of it being there or not. Randomness means equal probabilities of the outcomes.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Hmmm I don't think that's it. It sounds more like the "randomness" of Go, microservice architectures, and the butterfly effect, except based in quantum interaction theory. That is, the overall complexity is such that the outcome cannot be determined (or is very hard to determine) prior to the outcome actually occurring; and then the quantum/relativity stuff makes that more than just about available computation power.

Joeri 10y ago

The way I understand the non-determined != random argument is like this: you look to your left and will or will not find a briefcase with a million dollars. It is not determined that you will not find said briefcase, since there is a probability, no matter how small, that it has materialized there in some way. However, the presence of the briefcase is not random, because there is not an even probability of it being there or not. Randomness means equal probabilities of the outcomes.

RangerScience 10y ago
Hmmm I don't think that's it. It sounds more like the "randomness" of Go, microservice architectures, and the butterfly effect, except based in quantum interaction theory. That is, the overall complexity is such that the outcome cannot be determined (or is very hard to determine) prior to the outcome actually occurring; and then the quantum/relativity stuff makes that more than just about available computation power.