Re:PreprogrammedHi James,
James Stark wrote:
>I'm a little late entering this discussion on free will a preprogrammed pattern of >action. I've been traveling without access to my e-mail.
>No one seems to have questioned the validity of Glenn's Sierpinski's Gasket as an
>example of free will. As a mathematician who has used varied programmed languages
>to create computer programs, I see no evidence that any computer program could >ever
>simulate the free will that humans all experience. That free will always exists
>outside the computer in the human designer of the program.
>
>No random generator can create this free will. Just because a choice is
>unpredictable does not establish human free will. We can not even create a >program
> for true randomness. Roger Penrose speaks to this problem of creating random
>generators in Shadows of the Mind.
>
Actually, Dave did raise the question you have about does the gasket say anything about free will. Here was my reply:
********my reply*********
Dave raises some interesting points. I would like to comment on one of them.
----- Original Message -----
From: <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 5:05 PM
> There is, hoiwever, a more basic problem with the analogy, namely, that
> the motion is determined by chance. Whether this is connected to a
> pseudo-random or truly random number generator, it does not represent
> personal choice
It can be due to personal choice. Lets replace the dot with an intelligent
agent. The dot has a choice, do the moral thing and move halfway to dot 1,
do the sinful thing and move halfway to dot 2 or do a neutral thing an move
halfway to dot 3. As with all of us in life, we do some moral things, some
bad things and some that really don't make a difference (like belching in
public). This intelligent agent will now produce a Sierpinski's gasket as
surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. So these systems actually illustrate
that God could self-limit his knowledge of which choice we will make, but
our life will still provide the pattern required to fit into his global
scheme.
*********end of my reply********
The fact that we can't always do good ensures that Burgy's limiting case will never occur--I.e. that we will always chose good. It is also impossible to chose pure evil every time. To do that might mean going on a lifelong murder rampage shooting everyone you see. The thing that is similar (as you note below) is that free-will involves unpredictability. The random number generator does create some unpredictability.
Concerning the rest of your note:
>However, everyone seems to agree that the free will that humans do have is
>constrained by programmed decisions both in our brains and by our environment. >Our
>freedom is bounded by both nature and nurture. Free will decisions are not
>predictable.
And neither is the output from a random number generators. And this is why Sierpinski's gasket works as an analogy. You are confusing or conflating a few terms. First there is free will. Free will must be linked to unpredictability (i.e. randomness). Predictable behavior is not free behavior. Secondly, there is intelligent behavior vs. non-intelligent behavior. Non-intelligent behavior does not have to be predictable and being unpredictable it can be free. Unpredictable behavior may or may not be intelligent but it is free behavior. In Sierpinski's Gasket, we have a non-intelligent dot moving freely(randomly). In Newtonian mechanics we have an unintelligent meteor (since it is dense as a rock it is clearly inintelligent) which moves predictably and thus it is not free. We can have an intelligent being who is not free to chose(a prisoner or a person falling off of a bridge who is constrained to follow a parabolic trajectory). I think you are confusing free will with intelligence and one can't do that. Free will REQUIRES randomness.
> That is part of the gift of God, who used God's free will to share it
>with humans. God knows what range of actions we will do because of the fixed
>constraints. Within those constraints God lets us shape our own futures. God
>chose to limit what God could know for a reason.
First, I would point out that by building a random number generator (to the best of our ability), we also limit our knowledge of the future. If I want a deterministic result, I can program the computer to print "You are a really handsome guy" everytime I log on. I would know that it is going to happen and there is no freedom for it to do anything else. I would have perfect knowledge and could amaze my friends with my predictive powers by telling them what the computer would do when I turned it on.
However, if I program a random number generator that outputs a number between 1 and 100,000, and I like the computer to print one of 100,000 statements, Then I am not going to know what it will say when I log on. I have limited my knowledge just like you say God did when he created us. There is almost no way to limit knowledge without randomness coming into play. Thus, in programming Sierpinski's gasket, we are doing exactly what you say God did when he created the universe--limited his knowledge. So I don't see exactly what it is that you find objectionable to the gasket analogy.
And concerning the nature of God's self-limitation on his knowledge, I would add that it appears that this universe is built upon an edifice of probability amplitudes--quantum mechanics--in which the outcome of any given microscopic interaction may be unpredictable, but on the whole, when lots and lots of them take place, patterns arise from the chaos. An example would be the electron diffraction experiments. If you have one slit, no wave behavior of the electron is observed. It is a system with perfect certainty--the electron went through the only slit available. But with two slits, one can't tell which slit it went through and a pattern of wave-like interference develops behind the grating. And in this situation, more electrons strike the detector behind the grating IN BETWEEN THE TWO SLITS, not, as would be expected in a deterministic world,directly behind each slit! However, in spite of ones uncertainty about which slit the electron went through, one can be certain of the diffraction pattern amplitude behind the grating.
So when you said at the first of your note:
>No random generator can create this free will. Just because a choice is
>unpredictable does not establish human free will.
It is inconsistent with your two statements: "Free will decisions are not
predictable." and, "God chose to limit what God could know for a reason." I see no way for God to limit his knowledge without randomness. If there is another way for God to limit his knowledge without introducing randomness, please explain it. And please explain the contradictory nature of your statements above.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 08 2000 - 17:21:32 EDT