TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

High-powered mathematicians take on free will

62 pointsby nickbabout 16 years ago

10 comments

dinkumthinkumabout 16 years ago
They've missed one very important point; one that Hobbes, Hume, and others realized long ago. The utterance "free will" is literally meaningless. What would that even mean and why would you even want that?
评论 #533187 未加载
评论 #533025 未加载
enoquabout 16 years ago
Here's the link to John Conway's lecture videos. It includes links to the Free Will Lectures, although it isn't currently working for me.<p><a href="http://www.math.princeton.edu/facultypapers/Conway/" rel="nofollow">http://www.math.princeton.edu/facultypapers/Conway/</a>
评论 #532965 未加载
评论 #532400 未加载
jwilliamsabout 16 years ago
Their thesis is that if Humans have free will so do elementary particles (in a defined respect).<p>Anyone know much more on this? -- Does this relate to the theory that everything was predefined at the big bang - e.g. a big random number was generated and everything since then has simply been cause and effect? Or is it on another tack?
评论 #532218 未加载
评论 #532215 未加载
评论 #532137 未加载
ams6110about 16 years ago
"if a human experimenter can make decisions independently of past events, then the particle can also make a free choice"<p>The article does not make clear how "free choice" is different from "random chance" -- at least not to me.
评论 #532199 未加载
评论 #532156 未加载
andreyfabout 16 years ago
<i>They have packaged their arguments in an airtight mathematical theorem that rests on what they say are three unassailable axioms which happen to rhyme -- spin, fin and twin.</i><p>Aside from most discussions of "free will" arising from semantic confusion, I think pretty clearly points toward this being a bit of a joke...
评论 #532247 未加载
coglethorpeabout 16 years ago
If they prove we don't have free will and somebody gets upset, they can always say "Hey, it wasn't like we <i>choice</i> in what we studied. It just happened that way."
评论 #532295 未加载
评论 #532184 未加载
shaderabout 16 years ago
I think this article explains the idea much better: <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Do_su...</a>
评论 #533193 未加载
nazgulnarsilabout 16 years ago
free will is what optimizing a decision tree feels like when you're the evaluation function.
评论 #533397 未加载
kamensabout 16 years ago
I always knew that Whitehead was a pretty smart guy. Process philosophers must love this.
xenophanesabout 16 years ago
Why do experts in one field (like math) often think they must be brilliant at other fields (like philosophy)?<p>They are trying to prove stuff about free will, but have no expertise on the question of what free will is.<p>If you disagree, please post a comment saying why. I'd like to hear it.
评论 #532438 未加载