5 ms·

I don't know about all that quantum math craziness or that spin fin twin nonsense but it sounds like Conway shares a long standing sentiment I've had that "free

I don't know about all that quantum math craziness or that spin fin twin nonsense but it sounds like Conway shares a long standing sentiment I've had that "free will" is a story we tell ourselves because we want to believe our choices are based on something fundamentally more complex or important than the choices of an animal or a computer. Even if "free will" is a real thing and not just an illusion, what is it really but random in-deterministic variations, or what Conway called whims. I remember when I voiced these opinions in my college philosophy class to a room full of denialists. It's good to know I'm not alone in my thinking in a world where multi-verse and string theory are sooner accepted than the fact that free will is an illusion.

JackFr 12y ago
Your response is ripe with irony. 'A world where multi-verse and string theory are sooner accepted ...' indicates a world where there is agency, and thus will. We won't even go near your normative subjective ideas about the 'good'. You can't both deny the existence of free will, and castigate those whom with you disagree. If you're right, then none of us can be wrong -- certainly no more than a plant or a rock or the moon can be wrong.
- hrjet 12y ago
  > You can't both deny the existence of free will, and castigate those whom with you disagree. They certainly can; in fact they have no choice in that matter according to themselves.
- sjy 12y ago
  It is easy to imagine a computer program that is both deterministic and wrong. Why not a person?
  - shard972 12y ago
    Because a computer program is only deterministic if you look at it in a snapshot view, a human within the context of a "snapshot" could also be deterministic I suppose. Or the other way to look at it, A computer program changes over it's lifespan and when you look at it from that perspective it is not deterministic.
  - JackFr 12y ago
    When one describes a computer program as "wrong" it is within the context of what some other agent wants or expects it to do. As a purely physical process, it can never be wrong or right, it can just be.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      You have defined "wrong" in an incredibly strange and useless way. 2+2=5 is "wrong" regardless what agent you are or what universe you exist in.
- ivanca 12y ago
  This is a very common logical fallacy. Because the concept of "right" itself was created by society itself thanks to deterministic events, to be used in practical applications to judge and be judged, where that judgement is itself deterministic, so your concept of "wrong" and "right" would have to be a different one that the one used by society in order to say "no of us can be wrong". That can sound confusing so I will put a very simple example: A fireman is on front of a fire. The fire needs to be extinguish even if you think the fire is not to be blame for what it did because after all is only a fire, it didn't do it on purpose, but regardless it needs to be extinguish. The same happens with people, they are judged for what they do, for practical purposes, when they commit a crime, they are just like a fire that needs to be put out. But not with water by with judgement.
jamesaguilar 12y ago
Well, at the end Conway claims to believe in free will. I don't know what you make of that but it is in the article.

JackFr 12y ago

Your response is ripe with irony. 'A world where multi-verse and string theory are sooner accepted ...' indicates a world where there is agency, and thus will. We won't even go near your normative subjective ideas about the 'good'. You can't both deny the existence of free will, and castigate those whom with you disagree. If you're right, then none of us can be wrong -- certainly no more than a plant or a rock or the moon can be wrong.

hrjet 12y ago
> You can't both deny the existence of free will, and castigate those whom with you disagree. They certainly can; in fact they have no choice in that matter according to themselves.
sjy 12y ago
It is easy to imagine a computer program that is both deterministic and wrong. Why not a person?
- shard972 12y ago
  Because a computer program is only deterministic if you look at it in a snapshot view, a human within the context of a "snapshot" could also be deterministic I suppose. Or the other way to look at it, A computer program changes over it's lifespan and when you look at it from that perspective it is not deterministic.
- JackFr 12y ago
  When one describes a computer program as "wrong" it is within the context of what some other agent wants or expects it to do. As a purely physical process, it can never be wrong or right, it can just be.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    You have defined "wrong" in an incredibly strange and useless way. 2+2=5 is "wrong" regardless what agent you are or what universe you exist in.
ivanca 12y ago
This is a very common logical fallacy. Because the concept of "right" itself was created by society itself thanks to deterministic events, to be used in practical applications to judge and be judged, where that judgement is itself deterministic, so your concept of "wrong" and "right" would have to be a different one that the one used by society in order to say "no of us can be wrong". That can sound confusing so I will put a very simple example: A fireman is on front of a fire. The fire needs to be extinguish even if you think the fire is not to be blame for what it did because after all is only a fire, it didn't do it on purpose, but regardless it needs to be extinguish. The same happens with people, they are judged for what they do, for practical purposes, when they commit a crime, they are just like a fire that needs to be put out. But not with water by with judgement.

jamesaguilar 12y ago

Well, at the end Conway claims to believe in free will. I don't know what you make of that but it is in the article.