Friam

particles have free will

Classic

List

Threaded

19 messages Options

Robert Holmes

particles have free will

According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper.

Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder....

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Pamela McCorduck

Re: particles have free will

I wonder if Conway isn't making a little fun of the notion of free will here, as many scientists today scoff at the idea. I met Conway once. An interesting experience.

On Apr 18, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:

According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper.

Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder....

Robert
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

"To measure the abundance of positrons in cosmic rays, the team used data from the instrument PAMELA (Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics), which launched aboard a Russian satellite in June 2006. Unlike previous antimatter-hunting instruments, PAMELA can pinpoint not just the type of incoming particle but also its energy."

WIRED Science

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: particles have free will

In reply to this post by Robert Holmes

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:

According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper.

Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder....

Aren't we cheery this morning?

-- rec --

Nick Thompson

Re: particles have free will

In reply to this post by Robert Holmes

This is the sort of thing that drives behaviorists to be tower murderers.

"It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity."

First, what kind of a syllogism is this?

Second, valuable to whom? For what?

Third, assertions of free will in anything .... even humans --are not consistant with materialism. Materialism is the doctrine that everything that is real consists of matter and its relations.

Beyond materialism is only madness.

Free will is just a legal doctrine that allows us to kill people when they do something we dont like.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 4/18/2009 8:28:20 AM

Subject: [FRIAM] particles have free will

According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper.

Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder....

Robert

Russ Abbott

Re: particles have free will

That's the end of cheeriness.

-- Russ

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is the sort of thing that drives behaviorists to be tower murderers.

"It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity."

First, what kind of a syllogism is this?

Second, valuable to whom? For what?

Third, assertions of free will in anything .... even humans --are not consistant with materialism. Materialism is the doctrine that everything that is real consists of matter and its relations.

Beyond materialism is only madness.

Free will is just a legal doctrine that allows us to kill people when they do something we dont like.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 4/18/2009 8:28:20 AM

Subject: [FRIAM] particles have free will

According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper.

Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder....

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russ Abbott

Re: particles have free will

More to the point, here's how I like to look at it.

Quantum theory has non-determinism embedded within it. Conway (I believe) is really talking about non-determinism rather than the more provocative "free will." So how does that apply to us?

Suppose that we have buried deep within our brains a non-deterministic idea/impulse generator. If unchecked the generated impulse would lead--through mechanical effects--to some action in the world. But we also have built into us inhibitors that monitor these impulses and prevent some of them from reaching the stage of real action. These inhibitors are also deterministic: once installed they do their inhibition work mechanically. Where do they come from? Many of them are built in as a result of evolution. But others are learned. How does that happen? We are capable of "programming" our brains. That's not so different (although I don't mean to imply that we are "just" computational devices) from programming any computer. So just as computers are able to be programmed to act in certain ways -- and yet still be deterministic devices-- we too are able to program ourselves to act in certain ways -- mainly by installing useful inhibitory (or anti-inhibitory) mechanisms.

The bottom line is that the original impulses/ideas are random, not the result of free will. Whether or not they reach the state of realization is deterministic as a result of the "programs" we have installed in ourselves. The "programs" we install in ourselves is as result of the combination of our built-in tendency to install programs and the programs we happen to have installed in ourselves along the way.

This seems to me to provide a reasonable way of thinking about how we behave and about how we seem to have free will yet to do so within the context of a materialistic universe.

Also, it feels sort of right. We don't really have an idea on purpose. We don't have the "free will" to invent or create. That comes from a lower level mechanism. All we do is monitor what is generated and keep the good stuff. Our monitoring and selection skills are both built-in and learned. But they don't require what we normally think of as free will. (This is Dennett's message in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, that all creativity is the result of evolutionary processes: diversity generation and selection.)

-- Russ

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

That's the end of cheeriness.

-- Russ

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is the sort of thing that drives behaviorists to be tower murderers.

"It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity."

First, what kind of a syllogism is this?

Second, valuable to whom? For what?

Third, assertions of free will in anything .... even humans --are not consistant with materialism. Materialism is the doctrine that everything that is real consists of matter and its relations.

Beyond materialism is only madness.

Free will is just a legal doctrine that allows us to kill people when they do something we dont like.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 4/18/2009 8:28:20 AM

Subject: [FRIAM] particles have free will

According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper.

Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder....

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: particles have free will

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

That's the end of cheeriness.

I don't know, Nick seems cheery enough when contemplating the murder of colleagues for their espousal of free will, the only purpose of which is to justify the murder of those whose opinions or actions we don't like. But he doesn't need the justification because they're driving him to the act.

There was a lovely lifehacker post this week about what will power looks like when you leave a 4-year-old alone in a room with some tasty treat and tell them they can have it when the researcher returns to the room.

http://lifehacker.com/5216129/learn-willpower-techniques-from-the-marshmallow-test

-- rec --

Robert Howard-2-3

Re: particles have free will

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Particle decay is easy to explain if you assume a multiverse. And when you do, the “free will” disappears.

A multiverse theory today is difficult to swallow for the same reasons that the heliocentric theory, evolution, and relativity were difficult to swallow:

(1) We haven’t evolved to sense these theories in action. We don’t sense the Earth moving, species evolving, space warping, or time dilating. We have to use our minds.

(2) These theories diminish our ego’s desire to feel unique and special. We’re NOT the center of the universe. We’re NOT so different than other animals. We HAVEN’T been here forever.

(3) Such large numbers make us feel small. A few heavenly bodies vs. 10e21stars in the visible universe. 6000 years old vs. 14 billion years. 100 types of animals on the Arc vs. millions.

In a multiverse, we cannot sense the OTHER copies of ourselves in other parallel universe. We cannot sense our bodies and consciousness splitting each time any quantum particle splits into a finite set of states. If it WERE true, then we’d not be very special. Having 10e80 elementary particles in the universe is quite a big number. Now raise that to the power 10e60 Planck time units since the universe began, and raise it again to the average number of states each particle can have, and we end up with numbers far beyond our comfort zone. Interesting though, we seem to be more comfortable with an “infinite” number of family of curves generated by f(x) = c * x than we do with a large, but finite number of curves generated by the grand equation of the universe.

But many people do have the ability to make a hypothetical assumption. Suppose our conscious bodies do split with the universe every time any particle changes state. The multiverse theory says that if a particle CAN switch to N possible “next” states, then the particle DOES switch to ALL those states simultaneously – each in its unique universe, which then resembles a big static deterministic probability decision tree. There’s a Pauli-exclusion-like principle here where no two universes can have the same exact total state.

So suppose we are at time T0 in the diagram below observing an elementary particle. It can decay or not decay. In the multiverse, it does both. We at T1 in universe (a) say, “Hmm, why did it ‘choose’ to decay this time?” Our counterparts in T1 universe (b) say “Hmm, why didn’t ‘choose’ to decay this time?” Both equally confused because neither see the other part of the elephant. Once a particle decays, it pretty much stays that way forever so our observation experiment is deemed “done”. It’s only when it doesn’t decay that we continue observing.

Assuming we’re the only ones in a single universe (because we “feel” it so) leads to a paradox. We never understand why particles decay? We project “intelligence” and “free will” and “choice” into these particles just like we projected “femininity” into Luna before we understood astrophysics.

But when we make the leap of faith and, with our minds, step out of all the universes looking in on them all at once; only then do the particles becomes predictable, mundane deterministic machines that splits every M Planck time units. The bigger the M; the long the half-life!

Notice that this diagram easily predicts that we would observe an unpredictable decay at any point in time, but statistically observe an exponential decay with a half-life over any length of time. The half-life is equal to the length of any one arrow.

One big problem I have with my own hypothesis is that it leads us to think that each particle might have some type of counter inside it that, like an alarm clock, that ticks up to some amount of time and then splits. But there are other ways to resolve this… (later).

Robert Howard

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 10:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] particles have free will

This is the sort of thing that drives behaviorists to be tower murderers.

"It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity."

First, what kind of a syllogism is this?

Second, valuable to whom? For what?

Third, assertions of free will in anything .... even humans --are not consistant with materialism. Materialism is the doctrine that everything that is real consists of matter and its relations.

Beyond materialism is only madness.

Free will is just a legal doctrine that allows us to kill people when they do something we dont like.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 4/18/2009 8:28:20 AM

Subject: [FRIAM] particles have free will

According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper.

Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder....

Robert

oledata.mso (22K) Download Attachment

image001.emz (5K) Download Attachment

Particle Decay.jpg (11K) Download Attachment

Russ Abbott

Re: particles have free will

Occam must be holding his head.

-- Russ

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Robert Howard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Particle decay is easy to explain if you assume a multiverse. And when you do, the “free will” disappears.

A multiverse theory today is difficult to swallow for the same reasons that the heliocentric theory, evolution, and relativity were difficult to swallow:

(1)     We haven’t evolved to sense these theories in action. We don’t sense the Earth moving, species evolving, space warping, or time dilating. We have to use our minds.

(2)     These theories diminish our ego’s desire to feel unique and special. We’re NOT the center of the universe. We’re NOT so different than other animals. We HAVEN’T been here forever.

(3)     Such large numbers make us feel small. A few heavenly bodies vs. 10e21stars in the visible universe. 6000 years old vs. 14 billion years. 100 types of animals on the Arc vs. millions.

In a multiverse, we cannot sense the OTHER copies of ourselves in other parallel universe. We cannot sense our bodies and consciousness splitting each time any quantum particle splits into a finite set of states. If it WERE true, then we’d not be very special. Having 10e80 elementary particles in the universe is quite a big number. Now raise that to the power 10e60 Planck time units since the universe began, and raise it again to the average number of states each particle can have, and we end up with numbers far beyond our comfort zone. Interesting though, we seem to be more comfortable with an “infinite” number of family of curves generated by f(x) = c * x than we do with a large, but finite number of curves generated by the grand equation of the universe.

But many people do have the ability to make a hypothetical assumption. Suppose our conscious bodies do split with the universe every time any particle changes state. The multiverse theory says that if a particle CAN switch to N possible “next” states, then the particle DOES switch to ALL those states simultaneously – each in its unique universe, which then resembles a big static deterministic probability decision tree. There’s a Pauli-exclusion-like principle here where no two universes can have the same exact total state.

So suppose we are at time T0 in the diagram below observing an elementary particle. It can decay or not decay. In the multiverse, it does both. We at T1 in universe (a) say, “Hmm, why did it ‘choose’ to decay this time?” Our counterparts in T1 universe (b) say “Hmm, why didn’t ‘choose’ to decay this time?” Both equally confused because neither see the other part of the elephant. Once a particle decays, it pretty much stays that way forever so our observation experiment is deemed “done”. It’s only when it doesn’t decay that we continue observing.

Assuming we’re the only ones in a single universe (because we “feel” it so) leads to a paradox. We never understand why particles decay? We project “intelligence” and “free will” and “choice” into these particles just like we projected “femininity” into Luna before we understood astrophysics.

But when we make the leap of faith and, with our minds, step out of all the universes looking in on them all at once; only then do the particles becomes predictable, mundane deterministic machines that splits every M Planck time units. The bigger the M; the long the half-life!

Notice that this diagram easily predicts that we would observe an unpredictable decay at any point in time, but statistically observe an exponential decay with a half-life over any length of time. The half-life is equal to the length of any one arrow.

One big problem I have with my own hypothesis is that it leads us to think that each particle might have some type of counter inside it that, like an alarm clock, that ticks up to some amount of time and then splits. But there are other ways to resolve this… (later).

Robert Howard

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 10:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] particles have free will

This is the sort of thing that drives behaviorists to be tower murderers.

"It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity."

First, what kind of a syllogism is this?

Second, valuable to whom? For what?

Third, assertions of free will in anything .... even humans --are not consistant with materialism. Materialism is the doctrine that everything that is real consists of matter and its relations.

Beyond materialism is only madness.

Free will is just a legal doctrine that allows us to kill people when they do something we dont like.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 4/18/2009 8:28:20 AM

Subject: [FRIAM] particles have free will

According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper.

Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder....

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert Howard-2-3

Re: particles have free will

;-)

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] particles have free will

Occam must be holding his head.

-- Russ

Steve Smith

Re: particles have free will

In reply to this post by Robert Howard-2-3

Robert Howard wrote:

Particle decay is easy to explain if you assume a multiverse. And when you do, the “free will” disappears.

A multiverse theory today is difficult to swallow for the same reasons that the heliocentric theory, evolution, and relativity were difficult to swallow:

(1) We haven’t evolved to sense these theories in action. We don’t sense the Earth moving, species evolving, space warping, or time dilating. We have to use our minds.

(2) These theories diminish our ego’s desire to feel unique and special. We’re NOT the center of the universe. We’re NOT so different than other animals. We HAVEN’T been here forever.

But even with the (a?) multiverse theory, doesn't one have to (get to?) contemplate just how they came to be a singular identity/experiencer in a multitude of possibilities? I find variations on multiverse cosmology quite compelling from a theoretical/symmetric/completeness point of view. In particular I find Lee Smolin's variations quite compelling at many levels. But if anything, it leaves me wondering (still, yet more, not less) about the experience of identity and free will that I have. The closest thing I have to offer is a variation of the Anthropic Principle wherein the parts of the multi-verse continuum where "object-like-phenomena" exist, and where the "object-like-patterns" have complex enough organization to include "self-organization" and "emergent organization", and where within those forms of organization there is sufficient (qualitatively as well as quantitatively?) complexity to support patterns which are in some sense recursive (patterns that have sub-patterns of themselves within them?).

In these "regions" of the "multiverse continuum", there are recursive patterns which have the essential properties which I am calling self-awareness. Other regions of the multiverse continuum don't have these patterns so there is no "pattern" akin to an "I" contemplating "itself".

It is a bit resonant with my experience the day in 3rd grade when I quit mumbling the words "one nation under god" during our daily "prayer" (pledge of allegience). The trivial amount of social studies I'd been taught (that the Soviet Union was a *bad* form of government and way of life, but the *people* were just like us) left me to wonder how *I* got so lucky to be born an Amerikun (impose image of Captain America Character) while so many were so unlucky as to have been born Pinko Commie Losers (insert a different image of your choice, preferably degrading and humiliating and easy to dismiss).

I think I need another drink. Or a nap. Or .... maybe I should go back to my studies of Fredkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin)

Free the Particles! Enslave the Waves!

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert Howard-2-3

Re: particles have free will

I love the Anthropic Principle. I find it fun that it does get lots of criticism – but always emotional.

How could the first self-replicating molecule form? What if the smallest possible chain of amino acids that can replicate turns out to be 1000 base-pairs long? That would mean the chances of something like that happening would be at least 4 ^ 1000.

In the Anthropic Multiverse, it doesn’t matter how long the shortest self-replicating molecule is. As long as it is possible, there’s a 100% chance that it exists in one of the branches of the multiverse tree – and there we are!

If you don’t like that argument, then you’ll hate these more:

(1) Consciousness is that which “sees” only one universe. A particle is not conscious. Therefore it sees all universes simultaneously. A Zen Master becomes “one” with the universe by meditation. The “enlightenment” is the least conscious state that one can be in without actually being unconscious. He’s trying to experience what it would be like to be a rock. It might explain “near death” experiences as well as suicide bombers.

(2) The universe must exist. Proof: If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here to argue. Because we are here, “nothing” is impossible. Daddy, why does the universe exist? Because, it’s impossible for it not to exist!

(3) You’ll never experience your own death. Others will experience your death, but not you. Schrodinger’s Cat never dies from its own experience. At every tick of your life’s clock, there is a chance that you will die and non-zero chance that you won’t. Therefore, according to your own experience, you will life forever. The chance of us celebrating Lazarus 2000th birthday is ridiculously small but still positive. This explains why we have no record of anyone that old. But the chance that you will experience your next birthday, no matter how old you are, is 100%

(4) If you attempt to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff, there’s always a small chance you will survive (botch it up, chicken out, or miracles), and that is the universe you will be conscious in. It doesn’t mean you will not be crippled for many years to come. I do not have the bravery (nor the philosophy) to step in the stream of a machine gun firing, but I suspect that if I do, the gun will jam immediately. All soldiers return alive and well from war, just in different universes.

(5) Hugh Everett (who invented the “many world” theory) has a daughter named Elizabeth who committed suicide. She left a note that said she was going to another universe to be with her father. This freakishness now makes more sense than it should!

“One nation under God”. When you consider all the butterfly effects throughout history and just how improbable your existence is, you realize that everyone who is alive is astronomically lucky, regardless of any outsider’s pity. You might consider yourself luckier than someone born in a communist regime, but that’s because you only see the relative luck and ignore the common luck you both share. You both have 10e1000000… whatever chance of existing plus you alone have an additional 1 in 30 additional chance of being fortunate to live in America. You are focusing on the small number you have that your comrade lacks, but are ignoring the other far bigger number you both share.

I’d rather be tortured for 100 years than commit suicide now. Lucky, I have a third choice.

Rob

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] particles have free will

Russell Standish

Re: particles have free will

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 02:56:06PM -0700, Robert Howard wrote:
>
> (5) Hugh Everett (who invented the many world theory) has a daughter named
> Elizabeth who committed suicide. She left a note that said she was going to
> another universe to be with her father. This freakishness now makes more
> sense than it should!

Sadly QTI does not allow her to rejoin her father. Her father remains
dead in whatever universe she's in now. If she did do quantum suicide
for that reason, then that would be irony.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: particles have free will

You're probably right.

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:28 PM, russell standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 02:56:06PM -0700, Robert Howard wrote:
>
> (5) Hugh Everett (who invented the “many world” theory) has a daughter named
> Elizabeth who committed suicide. She left a note that said she was going to
> another universe to be with her father. This freakishness now makes more
> sense than it should!

Sadly QTI does not allow her to rejoin her father. Her father remains
dead in whatever universe she's in now. If she did do quantum suicide
for that reason, then that would be irony.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russell Standish

Re: particles have free will

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 01:12:09PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Occam must be holding his head.
>
> -- Russ
>

It is a mistake to think Occam's razor rejects the Multiverse. In fact
the opposite situation is true - Occam's razor is a reason for
preferring the Multiverse. Many people have discussed this (under
terms like zero information principle, or minimum information
principle), but you could take a look at my book Theory of Nothing,
which is a free download. Apologies for the plug.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Victoria Hughes

Re: particles have free will

The Multiverse and many of the variations and questions loping back
and forth here have been asked and addressed, with paradigm-consistent
explanations, in contemporary Buddhist texts. See Robert Thurman, for
example.
I am reminded of the saying 'a weed is just a plant we haven't found a
use for yet' when I hear these kinds of discussions. Explanations from
other disciplines standing in for the unwanted weed, dontcha know.
Our approaches to these questions come from many directions and move
towards this strange attractor of the 'multiverse'. And these
approaches are not as far apart as one might, ahem, think. Artichokes,
anyone?
Tory

On Apr 18, 2009, at 8:35 PM, russell standish wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 01:12:09PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
>> Occam must be holding his head.
>>
>> -- Russ
>>
>
> It is a mistake to think Occam's razor rejects the Multiverse. In fact
> the opposite situation is true - Occam's razor is a reason for
> preferring the Multiverse. Many people have discussed this (under
> terms like zero information principle, or minimum information
> principle), but you could take a look at my book Theory of Nothing,
> which is a free download. Apologies for the plug.
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Robert Howard-2-3

Re: particles have free will

In reply to this post by Russell Standish

I think her argument was that she has consciousness in two groups of
universes: the ones where her father is dead and the ones where he is still
alive, and that if she eliminates her consciousness in first group, then
she'll only be conscious in the second. We dont reflect on ourselves when
we're dead. All I experience is that she and her dad are dead in this U.
Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of russell standish
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 7:29 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] particles have free will

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 02:56:06PM -0700, Robert Howard wrote:
>
> (5) Hugh Everett (who invented the many world theory) has a daughter
named
> Elizabeth who committed suicide. She left a note that said she was going
to
> another universe to be with her father. This freakishness now makes more
> sense than it should!

Sadly QTI does not allow her to rejoin her father. Her father remains
dead in whatever universe she's in now. If she did do quantum suicide
for that reason, then that would be irony.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russell Standish

Re: particles have free will

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:31:29PM -0700, Robert Howard wrote:
> I think her argument was that she has consciousness in two groups of
> universes: the ones where her father is dead and the ones where he is still
> alive, and that if she eliminates her consciousness in first group, then
> she'll only be conscious in the second. We dont reflect on ourselves when
> we're dead. All I experience is that she and her dad are dead in this U.
> Rob
>

Interesting, so she actually made that argument. Unfortunately, it
won't work by straight quantum suicide - she would also need to
arrange for her to forget completely that her father ever died,
something known as quantum erasure. There is no obvious way of doing
that at present.

Of course the whole quantum suicide thing is rather dubious in
practice - kids don't try this at home. You'll end up in a worse place
than you are now if you try.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Anthropically Yours was: particles have free will

In reply to this post by Robert Howard-2-3

Robert -

Very wells stated. The Anthropic Principle is very, wonderfully "self-evident" at some level... You *can* not believe in it, but those who do, well.... they DO!

As for the luck of the draw in where you were born/raised/etc. it was my first experience with the Anthropic principle. In principle, 9 year olds just like me were sitting in their Komsomol run schools being told approximately the same thing... how lucky *they* were to have been born in the Glorious Soviet Republic and *not* in the decadent Capitalist state of the American Union. I did not know this to be the case, but it was a very small stretch of the imagination to imagine just that.

The anthropic principle and the multiverse theories put a very strange twist on the *experience* of free-will, if not the theory... it feels (to me) a bit like wind-surfing or snow-boarding in the deepest of powder where one's control of one's direction is unequivocal, yet the details are always up for grabs...

Carry On!
- Steve

I love the Anthropic Principle. I find it fun that it does get lots of criticism – but always emotional.

How could the first self-replicating molecule form? What if the smallest possible chain of amino acids that can replicate turns out to be 1000 base-pairs long? That would mean the chances of something like that happening would be at least 4 ^ 1000.

In the Anthropic Multiverse, it doesn’t matter how long the shortest self-replicating molecule is. As long as it is possible, there’s a 100% chance that it exists in one of the branches of the multiverse tree – and there we are!

If you don’t like that argument, then you’ll hate these more:

(1) Consciousness is that which “sees” only one universe. A particle is not conscious. Therefore it sees all universes simultaneously. A Zen Master becomes “one” with the universe by meditation. The “enlightenment” is the least conscious state that one can be in without actually being unconscious. He’s trying to experience what it would be like to be a rock. It might explain “near death” experiences as well as suicide bombers.

(2) The universe must exist. Proof: If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here to argue. Because we are here, “nothing” is impossible. Daddy, why does the universe exist? Because, it’s impossible for it not to exist!

(3) You’ll never experience your own death. Others will experience your death, but not you. Schrodinger’s Cat never dies from its own experience. At every tick of your life’s clock, there is a chance that you will die and non-zero chance that you won’t. Therefore, according to your own experience, you will life forever. The chance of us celebrating Lazarus 2000th birthday is ridiculously small but still positive. This explains why we have no record of anyone that old. But the chance that you will experience your next birthday, no matter how old you are, is 100%

(4) If you attempt to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff, there’s always a small chance you will survive (botch it up, chicken out, or miracles), and that is the universe you will be conscious in. It doesn’t mean you will not be crippled for many years to come. I do not have the bravery (nor the philosophy) to step in the stream of a machine gun firing, but I suspect that if I do, the gun will jam immediately. All soldiers return alive and well from war, just in different universes.

(5) Hugh Everett (who invented the “many world” theory) has a daughter named Elizabeth who committed suicide. She left a note that said she was going to another universe to be with her father. This freakishness now makes more sense than it should!

“One nation under God”. When you consider all the butterfly effects throughout history and just how improbable your existence is, you realize that everyone who is alive is astronomically lucky, regardless of any outsider’s pity. You might consider yourself luckier than someone born in a communist regime, but that’s because you only see the relative luck and ignore the common luck you both share. You both have 10e1000000… whatever chance of existing plus you alone have an additional 1 in 30 additional chance of being fortunate to live in America. You are focusing on the small number you have that your comrade lacks, but are ignoring the other far bigger number you both share.

I’d rather be tortured for 100 years than commit suicide now. Lucky, I have a third choice.

Rob

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] particles have free will

But even with the (a?) multiverse theory, doesn't one have to (get to?) contemplate just how they came to be a singular identity/experiencer in a multitude of possibilities? I find variations on multiverse cosmology quite compelling from a theoretical/symmetric/completeness point of view. In particular I find Lee Smolin's variations quite compelling at many levels. But if anything, it leaves me wondering (still, yet more, not less) about the experience of identity and free will that I have. The closest thing I have to offer is a variation of the Anthropic Principle wherein the parts of the multi-verse continuum where "object-like-phenomena" exist, and where the "object-like-patterns" have complex enough organization to include "self-organization" and "emergent organization", and where within those forms of organization there is sufficient (qualitatively as well as quantitatively?) complexity to support patterns which are in some sense recursive (patterns that have sub-patterns of themselves within them?).

In these "regions" of the "multiverse continuum", there are recursive patterns which have the essential properties which I am calling self-awareness. Other regions of the multiverse continuum don't have these patterns so there is no "pattern" akin to an "I" contemplating "itself".

It is a bit resonant with my experience the day in 3rd grade when I quit mumbling the words "one nation under god" during our daily "prayer" (pledge of allegience). The trivial amount of social studies I'd been taught (that the Soviet Union was a *bad* form of government and way of life, but the *people* were just like us) left me to wonder how *I* got so lucky to be born an Amerikun (impose image of Captain America Character) while so many were so unlucky as to have been born Pinko Commie Losers (insert a different image of your choice, preferably degrading and humiliating and easy to dismiss).

I think I need another drink. Or a nap. Or .... maybe I should go back to my studies of Fredkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin)

Free the Particles! Enslave the Waves!

- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org