351. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281830 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Brian

Try to carry out the argument of the induction step for n = 2 you'll see why.

The argument uses the second cow as a "link" between two groups. Group A consists of cow number 1 to n-1, whie group B consists of cow number 2 to n.

Now for the argument to work, group A and B must have cow 2 in common. But if n =2. Group A would just have one cow, namely cow number 1 (and group B would have one cow as well, cow number 2), the two groups don't have any cow in common.

352. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281819 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Brian,

The induction step has to work for ALL n so that the property you need to show propagates down the chain,--provided it holds for the base case,-- so to speak. Now for n = 2, the fact that proposition is true for n -1 (ie for 1) does not imply it is also true for n because the induction step requires that you have at least 3 horses(n > = 3).

EDIT: Now you may ask what if I start the induction step for n = 3? In that case your base case would be 2. The proposition that any pair of horses have the same colour is false, so the induction fails for the base case.

353. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #281814 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 9:44 pm

"disgusting children"??!!

Now that is disgusting.

354. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281811 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Brain

Bonzai, you don't have a pdf copy of it do you?

Not pdf. It is djvu, you can download a free reader. If you want it PM me.

355. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281810 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Brian re: Knuth's question

The induction step breaks down when n=2.

356. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281806 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Brian

If you haven't got this already , you should also check out

http://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Imagination-CHEL-Chelsea-Publishing/dp/0821819984

357. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281801 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 9:20 pm

The art of computer programming are not easy (4 volumes, I got vol 4 online). But there are solutions to some of the execrises.

High school math is pretty boring. I used to hate it. I actually thought of studying philosophy, until I met a very inspiring math teacher..

358. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281799 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Which of Knuth's books?

359. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281796 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Brian

Here is a beautifully written math book. Fairly elementary, but very conceptual.

http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Elementary-Approach-Ideas-Methods/dp/0195105192

P.S. Actually Penrose' big book is not so easy to read. Some of the exercises are pretty challenging
(How often does a pop science book come with execrises?)

360. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281785 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Mphil,

I didn't mean you'll fail because of what you do, but because of whatever input Brian and I may have, or just Brian. :)

361. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #281784 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 8:41 pm

I thought God already showed her the way out.

362. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #281780 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 8:38 pm

He's been a bad boy :) Just joking.

363. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #281777 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Where is Mitchell?

Grounded. :)

364. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281768 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Mphil,

would you be OK with me copying this specific conversation to study it further, and use some of these formualtions and considerations in my master's thesis? :)

Fine by me but I am not responsible if your fail. :)

365. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #281765 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 8:28 pm

What the hell? This thread is still alive? I think Palin is back to hunting mooses from helicopter!

366. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #281759 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Lee C

Any 'moderate' Muslims coming out condemning it?

From the article

But Ed Husain, co-founder of the counter-terrorism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, says Tower Hamlets has long turned a blind eye to the activities of local extremists. "We cannot afford for Tower Hamlets, home to Britain's largest Muslim population, to become a hotspot for radicals. The seeds of terror are sown at these events," he said.

He also criticised the police for taking their eye off the ball. "It's well known that Choudary is Bakri's spokesman in the UK, and that this group, Islam For The UK, is a splinter group of Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir, the originators of extremism in Britain. So why is this group not banned and its leaders arrested? To call for London's young Muslims to disobey British law and to rise up until the flag of Islam flies above 10 Downing Street is alarming and terrifying."

Ed Hussein is a moderate Muslim.

Now if the British authority takes no actions against such travesty happening under its nose and continues to bring in Muslim immigrants in large number AND ecourage them to stay in their cultural ghetto what good is moderate Muslim speaking out going to achieve?

Edit I think certian elements of the secular elite is more guilty in enabling fundamentalists than the moderates especially for Islam because of the fear of being labelled "racist".

367. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281743 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Mphil

As such, while classical common-sense free will - and the free will often defended by theists... namely free will that depends upon acausality, the old idea that it is somehow important that we "could have done differently" under the exact same physical conditions!!!... and that includes the weakly emergent (synergetic) properties of complex systems.

I don't see how that has to do with theism.

I assume, furthermore, that you are aware that the history of any non-deterministic (probabilistic) finite automaton, once it has gone through different states (once its history becomes actual, ie the system has actually "run"), can be modeled as a (ie described identically as a) deterministic finite automaton?

I did say that if you scroll back. Probabilistic Turing machines define exactly the same set of computatble functions. But does it follow an actual probablistic Turing machine is deterministic though? I think not.


[Besides, we don't yet know if there is a way to effectively simulate (with only a polynomial time slow down) a probabibistic Turing machine by a deterministic one in general ( even though it is strong suspect that it may be done)]

This is why I object to saying that simply because some system is behaves non-lineraly, or is like a cellular automaton, a non-deterministic finite automaton... once it has run and has a definite past (again, leaving aside various possible consequences of QM), it is describable as turing machine, calculating a specific function.

Not true. There are (classical) deterministic systems which are non Turing computatble. The two concepts don't coincide.

Edit See the papers of M.B. Pour-El and I. Richards.

368. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281724 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 7:17 pm

BTW, non determinism does not = "free will". There needs to be more thinking to formulate the latter.

369. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281721 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Mphil

That means we can say something about the system, we can describe it - model it, even though it has a random element - the possible outcomes are not entirely random

Nobody says it is. But as long as the probability distribution is not 1, 0, it is not "deterministic". There are degrees of randomness (say described by the entropy of the probability distribution) but there is only one deterministic state.

370. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281714 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Mphil

And we can - at least in principle - describe the history of such a system, if not in practice (because it would still be too much information to handle efficiently). It doesn't matter whether it's dynamic is linear or non-linear - whether it's like a cellular automaton or not, whether there it evolves towards a simple, complex or strange attractor. Fact is we can model what the the brain does (and I don't think you will want to deny that the mind is the function of the brain) meaningfully in terms of neural-network theory and automata-theory. We can even describe a neural network over time through Boltzmann-learning

No, that is not what I have in mind. To say that something is "deterministic" in a real world, meaningful sense doesn't simply means you can model some broad features in principle, but in practice you can replicate the same outcome if you run the experiment again. Chaos and intratability would prevent that.

My point is that it is meaningless to talk about "determinism" if in fact you can't determine the outcome beforehand, and repeating the experiment would lead to different outcomes (to be correct technically, it is impossible to "repeat" the same experiement because you can't even in principle "fine tune" the initial conditions except in very artificial computer simulations). So in practice it is meaningless.

(Aside: The problem with theology is that it obfiscates by asking too many meaningless questions. I usually try to "unask" their questions instead of being drawn into their game. This is my general approach to ontology and metaphysics)

Note that I am not bringing in any QM here, though it is conceivable macro QM effects may have a role to play in "consciousness",--QM effects somehow get magnified as in the Geiger counter example.

371. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281699 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 6:49 pm

But it was not "determined"

372. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281695 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Brain

you did determine to let the geiger counter choose

But you don't determine the outcome. The chain therefore is not determined.

Anyway, the point is, all our moral choices must be free, as in not determined by anything antecedent for us to be hell-worthy.

I have never been able to see how theology or God has anything to do with it anyway so I am always a bit puzzeled. One can ask whether we have "free will" in the sense of making choices without reference to God or gods and it seems to be a natural question.

Jean Paul Satre was a staunch atheist who also appeared to believe in free will, to an almost exggerated degree. And free will exists, to him, exactly because God doesn't.

But then as I said, maybe we are talking about "free will" with different meanings.

373. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281682 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Brian

Bonzai, do you think that you have done things that were not determined?

How about this. Say you can't decide whether to break up with your girlfriend after weighing all the pros and cons. You decide to run an experiment of radiocative decay. If you hear a click on the Giger counter in the next second, break up with your girl friend, otherwise stay with her? (In the "classical version" you can throw a coin. head breakup, tail stay)

It is not "free will" technically, but to answer your question it is not determined either.

But realistically what does "determined" mean to you? Even though probabilistic alogrithmss can theoretically be implemented deterministically, but in practice if you run a probablistic algorithm (which incorporates random "choices")is it techincally "determined", or no? Why does it matter?

374. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281670 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm

"Causally determined" is not the same as computable. Nor is it the same as tractability (e.g chaos) In practice very few systems can be treated as "casusally determined" so it is again one of those cases where the philosophical concept isn't scientifically as relevant as it seems. A truly "causally determined system" in practice means "integrable systems". They are rare (However, they are in some sense "dense" in that even chaotic systems in some sense have an integrable core. E.g. "the shadowing theorem")

375. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281658 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 6:16 pm

I think we are getting the categories mixed up here. I don't think free refers to an objective state, but a subjective state of mind, something has to do with emotion. Hence "God" cannot have free will if it does not have emotion even if it is ominipotent.

But I need to sort it out first to formulate it clearly.

376. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281640 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Brian

If God has no emotion,it would have no free will either.

377. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281635 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 6:01 pm

An ominpotent and omniscient being must be bored out of its skull, that's why he started talking to dimwits such as Christians to have fun.

Otherwise he would have killed himself.

Can you imagine living in a state where you are all alone, everything is known, there is no mysteries, no challenge, no surprise?

If God exists there will be hell and it has only one occupant,--God himself. So when the atheist dies, God sends him to hell by, poof, turning him into another God to share his misery. (I should turn this into a fiction!)

378. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281621 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 5:54 pm

R2S

I guess so. If the universe is indeed completely deterministic, then, theoretically, the exact state of the universe could be computed at any point of time

Deterministic is not the same as computatble if you mean Turing computable.

379. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281617 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Brian English

As Mike pointed out above, conra-causal free will is stupid. If you just, without any antecedent cause or desire did something, then how would you be responsible?

Can you just tell me exactly what those words mean? If they mean what I think they mean, it is completely trivial.

380. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281611 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 5:46 pm

I see there are some problems in defining what it means by "free will" and "determinism". People are using words in different ways.

381. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281609 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 5:45 pm

DP,

You are mistaken. What you described is the position that "free will"(whatever it means) exists because of God's permission. Not whether free will exists. Even if it exists, it doesn't have to be the result of God's generosity.

382. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281606 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 5:42 pm

And one should also define "deterministic" carefully before proceeding.

383. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281596 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 5:29 pm

DP

If people have no free will why (and how?)should they be held responsible for their actions? So all your posts on other threads about the market being a desirable mechanism to reward hard work and right choices are pure b.s., for now you say there is no choice. (Edit: Those posts of yours are B.S anyway with or without free will, this is just yet another angle to highlight your fallacies)

384. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281592 by Bonzai on November 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Can someone please define what is "free will" first?

I don't see how that is intrinsically related to God or how as an atheist one must see "free will" as a dirty word Does the absence of free will means all your actions are preordined, down to the 'intention' to pick up a cup or raise your arm? Now how is that a liberating thought? And how is it possible to live sincerely subscribing to such a view about our own existence? (Edit I mean, I can't see how one can honestly deny wholesale the notion of "free will" in the conventional sense without subscribing to fatalism. This is an impossible to live, for even the most fatalistic person cannot live as though he is just an automaton)

385. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281161 by Bonzai on November 9, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Now I understand that my own experience may differ from others on this forum, but it would be nice to have a show of hands for those of you on this forum, that use a Linux OS on its own or as a dual boot with Windows.

My PC runs window XP. I would like to switch to Linux except I use many softwares of, let's just say unorthodox origin. The Linux versions may not be as easy to find. Mac is definitely out of the question as some of these softwares simply don't have up to date Mac versions.

EDIT: At the moment don't have enough RAM

386. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281071 by Bonzai on November 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Mitchell

Godel's second incompleteness theorem. If you are sure that you are sane, you must be insane. :-)
( A consistent formal system (with some qualifications) cannot prove its own consistency)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem

It is not the same as saying I am irrational, just that I can't say that I am rational. :-)

387. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281068 by Bonzai on November 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I am sure I am not very rational.

388. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281064 by Bonzai on November 9, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Diacanu

Name names.

DP!!

389. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280992 by Bonzai on November 9, 2008 at 6:37 am

Roger Stanyard,

Is that a pictiure of DP on your avatar?

390. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280991 by Bonzai on November 9, 2008 at 6:20 am

Mphil

I differ with many people who label themselves "leftist" or "liberal" in that I am for a continued involvement of the US in Iraq - until the mess that was created is rectified. Of course the tens of thousands of civilians cannot be brought back to life - but an infrastructure, a working governmental system, balance of power and rational participation in structuring the community have to be achieved.

Actually, I tend to agree with that unless there is a better argument that the continued presence of the U.S. in Iraq would cause more damage.

But the argument of continued presence of the U.S. and its allies in Iraq is not the same one to justify the invasion in the first place, and doesn't retroactively justify it. It is simply that the U.S. has a moral obligation to deal with the mess it has created no matter how high the cost. Basically, you own what you break.

Your analogy of the U.S. being a Mafia Don enforcing gangland justice is a good one. Actually I have used it in other debates. However, I used the cop analogy because it was zero's and I wanted to keep the debate focused on whether U.S. soldiers should reject illegal orders instead of starting a new debate about the track record of post WWII U.S. military interventions. When I was posting to zero, I was actually thinking of some U.S. army deserters who are seeking political asylum here in Canada.

Finally, IMO the invasion was wrong. It was not only illegal, it couldn't be justified even if we ignore legalism and use the Dirty Harry argument (It may work in North Korea). However, I do think that individual soldiers can conduct themselves honourably in terms to adhering to the rule of combat etc. But then during WWII many Wehrmacht soldiers and officers conducted themselves professionally and honourably in the battle field as well. I agree with you again that they still bear some culpability as enablers of an unjust war.

Goo posts.

BTW, I do often agree with you, only not on philosophy and the nature of science.

391. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280913 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Zero

This leads to nations like Israel (and the US) being told they aren’t allowed to defend themselves or their interests

How is the U.S. defending "its interests" by invading a country on a different continent? And when did U.S. interests come into the equation? Aren't we told American troops are there to liberate people?

392. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280909 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Zero

The UN is a useless organization. It is akin to a powerless keystone cop in a lawless town. In order to enforce any of its "rules" it must deputize the very members of its “town” that can’t agree. As such it often refuses to take action and proclaims that anyone who does take action is doing something “illegal.

Ok, fair enough. But that is a different argument from the one you used earlier that cops cannot choose which law to enforce.

Here you're basically saying that the court is useless because scumbags get off by exploiting loopholes and technicalities, while honest people often get caught for stupid things. So to restore justice we should just take the law in our own hands and blow the scumbags away. You are making a case for vigilantism. This is the dirty Harry argument.

But to continue with your analogy. If it is ok for the police chief to act on his own and order hits on the scumbags on the ground that the court is useless. Why is it not ok for our hypothetical officer to act on his own to disobey the chief?

393. Unknown 'Structures' Tugging at Universe, Study Says

Comment #280908 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 9:30 pm

mmurray

.. the fact that CIA, KGB etc have found nothing useful.

If they find something useful do you think they will tell you? Sorry, just can't resist it. :-)

394. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280897 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Zero

As for the UN, again, already answered by Al-rawandi.

I don't know which posts of Al's you're referring to. If you mean his tedious exchange with Mitchell(Wosret) I can't see what bearing do they have on the legality of the war.

According to then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, the invasion of Iraq was "not in conformity with the UN charter…from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Where are those WMD, by the way? Maybe they are on Noah's ark? :)

395. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280893 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Zero

No shit. I suppose then you also think it is just fine for police officers to pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce.

This is the wrong analogy. The correct one should be whether a police officer should always carry out orders even if the orders are illegal. If you are a cop and your commanding officer tells you to assasinate some scumbags alledgedly for some greater good, will you do it, should you?

In my country the Iraq war is considered illegal because it is not sanctioned by the UN. That's why we didn't send troops there. Even under the most charitable intepretation, the Iraq war is an act of international vigilantism. We can debate whether the U.N. is an useful institution, but as long as we still pay lip service to international law, the war is illegal.

396. Obama the Secularist

Comment #280892 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Ed

I don't agree (Bonzai #100) that this is a witch hunt. Knowing his beliefs helps us
interpret his future actions (or lack of them)
in this area ( and it's a "fun" parlor game)

How is that different from Christians who want to know politican's religious belief beforehand?

Secularism goes both ways. If religion is kept out of public discourse, the public would have no right to pry into politicians' private belief and second guess them. Secularism means, exactly as Obama says, that points of view and positions on public policies have to be explained and defended based on reason and evidence. The corollary is that positions and points of view should be judged only on those criteria, not speculations on what might have motivated them.

397. Unknown 'Structures' Tugging at Universe, Study Says

Comment #280887 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Dr. Hameer

We then agreed that controlled experiments were necessary. I said that this was why I had actually been doing such experiments, including tests to find out if people really could tell who was calling them on the telephone when the caller was selected at random. The results were far above the chance level.

How large was the sample?

Just want to mention that with a large enough sample you can reject any null hypothesis because the test would have enough power to detect any tiny difference, way below the meaningful level of the experimental set up. You can for example, "prove" that ESP exists by making people guess cards at random this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

However, concerns regarding the high power of statistical tests to detect differences in large samples have led to suggestions for re-defining the null hypothesis, for example as a hypothesis that an effect falls within a range considered negligible. This is an attempt to address the confusion among non-statisticians between significant and substantial, since large enough samples are likely to be able to indicate differences however minor.

One can probably raise other questions concerning the design of the experiement and the quality of the data. I agree that the scientific community should actually look at the data to find out.

But at a fundamental level statistical inference contains pitfalls even if everything is carried out according to accepted protocol. It is tricky to try to establish extraordinary claims like telepathy using only one statistical method. You need to cross check using different designs.

398. Fred Phelps's son is an atheist: Running from hell

Comment #280844 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 2:03 pm

I would be rather pleased if an actual God spoke to me. I would have a bit of a problem with their claim to God-ness, though.

If God ever talks to you, you should see a shrink.

399. Japanese researchers make brain tissues from stem cells

Comment #280823 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 12:52 pm

sctparker

Interesting to think that modern Japan is possible, thanks in no small part to the forcible deprogramming of the state religion in WWII...Thus freed, they have made rapid progress, with religious influences relegated to fairly harmless customs and pretty buildings.

Actually Japan was technologically and scientifically advanced even before WWII. Yukawa published the theory of mesons in 1935 (for which he won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1949)

It was the technological superiority that enabled Japan to start the WWII.

The systematic modernization of Japan started with the Meiji Restoration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period

400. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280814 by Bonzai on November 8, 2008 at 12:24 pm

DP is an asshole.

No apologies for the language, I wish I could channel Styrer.