On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:58:14 -0000 "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
. Glenn responds in II
> (2) that
> > he can substitute a "person." Later, II (3) and (4), he says that
> > "free-will involves unpredictability." I am persuaded that Jim is
> right,
> > and that the proposed substitution of a chooser is irrelevant.
> First, no
> > one is going to choose enough times to create a gasket.
>
> Dave, that is like saying that planets around stars in other
> galaxies don't
> exist because no one is going to go to the trouble of actually
> traveling to
> one. Such an objection is really irrelevant in itself to the
> existence of
> planets in Andromedae. Similarly, boredom on the part of the people
> involved
> is a poor reason to say that something can't be done.
This was a minor point. The important one follows.
>
> Second, when
> > people choose, they become predictable by falling into a pattern.
> This is
> > why the requirement for randomization turns them to flipping
> coins,
> > throwing dice (though there are ways to "educate" both),
> psuedo-random
> > number generators, or the IBM tables.
>
> If people are so predictable, predict the stock market for the next
> year.
> Lets see how accurately you predict the behavior of the people
> investing in
> the market. Simple answers like up 5, down 30 will suffice. If you
> get the
> numbers to the leftof the decimal correct on the next year, I will
> gladly
> stand corrected.
> >
This is totally off the point. The stock market is not the area of moral
decisions. These are individual. The traders make some moral decisions.
By extension, some trading organizations may be said to act morally or
immorally, though only illegal actions are penalized. It is theologically
correct to say that God's final judgment will be on the individuals whose
decisions produced the corporate actions, not on the corporation. A
"virtual person" cannot be consigned to hell or welcomed to heaven..
Additionally, with the flood of rumors (many false, circulated in an
attempt to manipulate stock prices), plus the emotional rather than
rational decisions involved (it is proverbial that the market runs on
greed and fear), to which may be added complexity, the demand for
prediction is silly. It's like today requiring a precise weather report
for Houston for July 4. Yet the weather is accepted as causally
determined. For that matter, nothing can be more exactly determined than
the decimal value of pi, yet the sequence of integers passes all known
tests for randomness.
> > As for unpredictability, consider a moral person who finds a
> wallet which
> > contains identification and some cash. What will he/she (to be
> > politically correct) do? Anyone have any problem with the
> prediction?
> > Does that mean the person lacks free will?
>
> Moral people do bad things all the time. That is why you can't
> predict it.
> Maybe he just found out he needs a new car.
>
I think I mentioned the breaking point. But I find it easier to predict
certain human actions rather than the weather.
>
> Those gyrations are caused by rational people trying to maximize
> their
> wealth. And they are doing it with their free wills--like it or
> not. And
> they aren't falling into these patterns you seem to think all human
> behavior
> must fall into.
>
>
Where did I say "must"? Since you object strongly when people wrongly
ascribe claims to you, please do the same for me.
I know you later said you'd be away from e-mail for a little. I'm sorry I
did not get to answering your post before you took off. But this should
be waiting quietly for your return.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 12 2000 - 16:57:38 EDT