Re: "Free Will Theorem"

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:30:49 +1000

Ah John, if only I could understand what you're saying...

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:45:22AM -0400, John M wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russell Standish" <>
> To: "John M" <>
> Cc: "Stathis Papaioannou" <>;
> <>; <>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:09 PM
> Subject: Re: "Free Will Theorem"
> Russell S. writes in his convoluted from attachment-digging out ways:
> "Laplace's daemon is a hypothetical creature that knows the exact state
> of every particle in the universe. In a deterministic universe, the
> daemon could compute the future exactly. Of course the daemon cannot
> possibly exist, any more than omniscient beings. In a quantum world,
> or a Multiverse, such daemons are laughable fantasies. Nevertheless,
> they're often deployed in reductio ad absurdum type arguments to do
> with determinism."
> Again the stubborn anthropomorphic "one-way" thinking about the idea of a
> total determinism in one way only. Everything calculated 'in' there is only
> ONE outcome in the world - as the essence of the one-way universe's own
> determinism. This was the spirit that made the "total greater than the sum
> of its components" - the "Aris-total" of the epistemic level 2500 years ago.
> It is an age-old technique to invent a faulty hypothesis (thought
> experiment, etc.) and on this basis show the 'ad absurdity' of something.
> Determinism as I would like "'to speak about it"' is the idea that whatever
> happens (the world as process?) originates in happenings - (beware: not "a
> cause" as in a limited model, but) in unlimited ensembles of happenings all
> over, not limited to the topical etc. boundaries we erect for our chosen
> observations. The happenings are including the 'ideational' part of the
> world, which is 'choice-accepting' - consequently not fully predictable.
> As in: endogenously impredicative complexities.
> Anticipatory is not necessarily predictable and (my) deterministic points to
> the other side: not where it goes TO, but comes FROM. Even there it is more
> than we can today encompass (compute?) in full.
> This may be a worldwide applicational principle of the spirit that made its
> minuscule example into QM as the 'uncertainty'.
> Or the cat, or a complimentarity.
> Alas, I cannot "'speak about it'", because we are not up to such level. Not
> me, not you, not even the materialistic daemon. We all are rooted in the
> materialistic reductionist models what our neuronal brain can handle - in a
> world of unlimited interconnectedness.
> John Mikes

*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	       0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                      
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Received on Fri Apr 22 2005 - 21:58:03 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST