<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sun, Nov 27, 2016  Stuart LaForge </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>Why are you arguing the value of a classically obtained<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>probability whose sole significance is that you claim it differs from the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>quantum mechanical result?</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​I was arguing that Adrian's description of even classical probability (never mind the quantum version) led to contradictory results.  ​</div> </font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
​<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​>>​</div><font size="4"> tell me what on earth "free will" means and I might want to<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>comment about it.</font></blockquote>
<br>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>For shit's sake John, the definition is right there in the section of my<br>
post that you quoted: ​"John on the otherhand seems to believe that he<br>
really does choose the​ ​angle of the polararizer or direction of magnetic<br>
field when conducting an​ ​experiment[.]"<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4">​Apparently you believe the ​word "choice" explains everything that needs explaining about that odd phrase "free will". I do not. There are only 2 possibilities,  you "chose" to do X rather than Y for a reason in which case you're a cuckoo clock, or you "chose" to do X rather than Y for no reason in which case you're a roulette wheel. Where does this thing you call "free will" enter into this?</font></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>I think that the notion that some local events have causes too remote for<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>us to ever know and the notion that those same events have no cause at all<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>are empirically indistinguishable<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">​Maybe, and yes, that would be ​<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">empirically indistinguishable from having no cause.</span></font></div></div><div> </div><div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>and therefore redundant.</span></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">​<font size="4">But<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ there are some non-local events that we DO know about. ​</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​With​</div> the latest Bell experiments we DO have confirmation that some events DO have an influence on things faster than the speed of light, although this influence can not be used for communication. </font></span><font size="4"> </font><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>Furthermore, one of the major loopholes in Bell's Inequality is<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>superdeterminism which is the idea that *everything* that happens has been<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>predestined to happen since the beginning of time including what variable<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>a researcher chooses to measure.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>In that case, all the quantum weirdness disappears</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​<font size="4">Yes the universe could be a put-up job. Maybe 10 billion years ago and 10 billion light years away when a photon was born on a </font></div><font size="4">quasar<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ it already knew it would someday encounter your sunglass lens and it also knew exactly how much you would decide to rotate that lens. But if so that seems pretty damn weird to me.  ​</div></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>Assuming evolution through natural selection, it seems highly unlikely<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">that an organism would evolve the perception of freedom of choice, without<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">there being any actual freedom of choice.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​Evolution or no Evolution I don't see how ​</div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">an organism could NOT have that feeling. I ask you "do you want to do X or Y?" and you reply "I haven't decided yet, it's a complex problem, there are pros and cons to both and I haven't finished the calculation</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​", after 5 minutes you say "OK I finished the calculation and I've decided I want to do Y". </div></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">I find all this no more mysterious than the fact that you don't know what you will decide to do before you've decided to do it. Even a calculator doesn't know what number it will decide to put on its screen when you type in 2+2 until the microprocessor has finished making the calculation.</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"> John K Clark</font></div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>