[extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
stathisp at gmail.com
Sat Apr 7 03:01:24 UTC 2007
On 4/7/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
I do not think that genes and environment
> play a major role when people buy, or sell,
> (or keep) shares of IBM, or Apple.
No? What else could *possibly* be at play here?
> Some people find a place for free will in indeterminacy,
> > perhaps the indeterminacy in QM (or at least the CI of QM).
> > But at best, that means free will is *randomness*,
> > and why should we be any happier to believe that our
> > behaviour is random than that it is determined?
> Asher Peres wrote several pages (with calculations)
> about free will, especially in case of (possible)
> physical 'entanglements' between a subject and
> another subject. But he found that the 'will' was
> 'free' enough, in any possible condition.
> Note that the 'free will' of the observer is itself
> a precondition if one wants to prove Bell
> theorems. If you remove the essential assumption
> of 'free will' you can also explain the so called
> quantum nonlocality, via a sort of 'superdeterminism',
> as Bell called it.
The "free" choices in Bell inequality type experiments are really random
choices. Is there a difference between free will and randomness? My view of
it is that the feeling that we are not constrained in making a choice is
what we term "free will", and it doesn't feel any more or less free if the
choice really is constrained or if it is random.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat