Jeanette Lee is HOT!
Nov 14, 03 | 8:52 am by Aaron Hartter
Can you tell the difference between a billiard ball and a man? If you answered no, then you are probably a determinist. As the reader can probably imagine, confusing billiard balls and people can lead to many awkward situations. I could tell you the story of one determinist who got it into his head that he would like to play pool and proceeded to hit a large biker with a pool stick. Or another determinist, mistaking it for a woman, seeking to fornicate with a pool ball. Suffice it to say, none of these situations turned out well for the determinist. So, in an effort to prevent such situations from reoccurring, I will attempt to explain to the audience the differences between a man and a billiard ball.
1. Thought. I think that I think, in fact I’m pretty sure. Cogito ergo cogito, simple as that. What’s more, I think that human beings think, with only a few notable exceptions. Billiard balls, on the other hand, do not think. I think that is a safe assumption to make. Seeing as how there are probably few billiard balls reading this, I think it is unnecessary to continue.
2. Option. We could call this one alternative or choice. Humans have displayed before them many options, for instance the option to turn right or the option to turn left. A billiard ball has no option before it. The ball does not have the option to turn left or to turn right, rather it remains stationary until struck. If, in pool, the ball had the option to go into one of the six pockets, it would make the game far easier. But that is not the case, it is the player who has the option of the to hit the ball in one of the pockets. You have the option to continue reading or to go play pool, a billiard ball would not have that option.
3. Purpose. When a person acts, a person acts with a goal. My goal in writing this is to clear up the determinist’s confusion. The determinist’s goal in arguing determinism is to convince himself that he does not have free will. Billiard balls, as I’m sure you all realize, do not act for any purpose. They do not value certain things, nor do they work towards those things. I don’t think there will be too much controversy over this point. Now, purpose leads us to our next difference…
4. Judgment. A person is able to judge the various options presented before him, we might identify this with deliberation or say it stems from deliberation. Either way, a billiard ball, as you may have guessed, does not have it. A billiard ball, I think, would judge staying on the table as being much more desirable than falling into the pocket. But that don’t mean squat when his backside has just been hit by the cue ball.
5. Power. Now, there might be some disagreement over this final one. Anyone who has been hit in the groin with a pool ball, as I have, would say that a pool ball has power. But that’s not the type of power I mean. The type of power I am talking about might be called initiatory power or control. I can move my fingers in order to type. If a billiard ball had such a power, I suppose there would be a billiard ball insurrection. I think it very likely that they would craft large pool table on which to torment humans, their former masters. The reader, however, can relax, because pool balls have no such power.
Now for a concrete example. This example will feature two characters, professional billiards player Jeanette Lee and a billiard ball. Jeanette Lee is playing pool, the billiard ball is on the pool table, simple enough. Jeanette Lee thinks about the pool table, and the pool balls in their various positions, the ball does nothing. Various options are before Lee: hitting this ball over there (or that ball over here), buying a soft drink, going to make out with famous blogger Aaron Hartter, etc., the ball continues to do nothing. Certain goals could be met which each of the options: winning the game, quenching thirst, fulfilling a deep need that is in all of us, etc., nothing is going on with the ball. Lee judges the options and the goals, and decides upon one, meanwhile the ball remains where it is. Lee uses her power to pick up her stick and hit the cue ball which then strikes the other ball, the ball goes into the pocket.
I hope this has cleared up some confusion, as that was my purpose in writing this. Due to limitations in space and time, I had to skip some things and combine others, and I’m sure some determinist will point that out. But I won’t blame him, I will blame the prior causes that made him do it.
Now that we have that settled, can you tell the difference between George Bush and a chimp? Because I sure as hell can’t.
November 14th, 2003 at Nov 14, 03 | 9:36 am
This is pretty hot:
And so is this:
November 15th, 2003 at Nov 15, 03 | 10:17 pm
I agree on two points:
1. Jeannette Lee is indeed ragingly hot.
2. Determinists do not know the differences between billiard balls and people.
However, an impossible choice is no choice at all, therefore the consideration by Jeannette Lee, pre-eminent lady of the cue, to “make out” with Aaron Hartter, being clearly and a prior impossible, is no choice at all.
Score one for the determinists on that one.
Heh heh, Mad Commenter
November 15th, 2003 at Nov 15, 03 | 10:20 pm
MC,
This is the best argument I’ve seen against free will. I can’t imagine her fooling around with Aaron either.
November 17th, 2003 at Nov 17, 03 | 4:57 pm
Well, well, well … what do we have here … ?
A Graviton, who doesn’t realize that he is just a little “billiard ball” from a perspective in the ultimate reality … a particle. How cute. How endearing.
So much for Materialism … ;)
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 12:17 am
Aaron Hartter: 1. Thought. I think that I think, in fact I’m pretty sure. Cogito ergo cogito, simple as that. What’s more, I think that human beings think, with only a few notable exceptions. Billiard balls, on the other hand, do not think. I think that is a safe assumption to make. Seeing as how there are probably few billiard balls reading this, I think it is unnecessary to continue.
Define the term “Think”.
Perhaps you don’t “think” at all, perhaps you only Perceive? How do you know that the Perception of yourself Perceiving (Self-awareness) is not creating an illusion that you are “Thinking”?
Aaron Hartter: 2. Option. We could call this one alternative or choice. Humans have displayed before them many options, for instance the option to turn right or the option to turn left.
How about the option to run a red light at a busy intersection, or the option not to run that red light? The problem is that if you never select the alternative option you are really only imagining (or pretending) that you have an option.
But that is okay, because if running red lights is the definition of “free will” then it sounds as if you have to be either insane or evil to possess “free will”.
Aaron Hartter: A billiard ball has no option before it.
Because a billiard ball is the product of (is generated by) a Graviton, whereas You are a Graviton. You have self-awareness, the billiard ball (relatively speaking) does not.
Aaron Hartter: The ball does not have the option to turn left or to turn right, rather it remains stationary until struck.
Actually all action (output) is preceded by input, so in reality consciousness is not much different than billiard balls in this regard.
Aaron Hartter: If, in pool, the ball had the option to go into one of the six pockets, it would make the game far easier. But that is not the case, it is the player who has the option of the to hit the ball in one of the pockets. You have the option to continue reading or to go play pool, a billiard ball would not have that option.
Think of it like this. When you get inside your car for a drive you have an ability that you did not possess when you were not inside of the car (options). You can think of your physical body (as opposed to your mind) in a similar way. When you are inside of your physical body you possess abilities that you do not possess without it.
Of course there are some things you cannot do when you are inside a car.
Aaron Hartter: 3. Purpose. When a person acts, a person acts with a goal. My goal in writing this is to clear up the determinist’s confusion. The determinist’s goal in arguing determinism is to convince himself that he does not have free will.
Question begging my friend. I could just as easily say:
When a graviton acts, a graviton acts based solely on the laws of Gravity. My purpose in writing this is to clear up the “free willer’s” confusion. The “free willer’s” purpose in arguing [for the existence of] “free will” is to convince himself that he does have free will.
Aaron Hartter: Billiard balls, as I’m sure you all realize, do not act for any purpose. They do not value certain things, nor do they work towards those things. I don’t think there will be too much controversy over this point.
The Laws of Physics (TLOP) control the behavior of ALL “matter”.
Your physical brain is made of “Matter” and nothing else.
Ergo – TLOP (or “God”) controls the behavior of YOU (completely).
When YOU drive your CAR do YOU control the CAR, or does the CAR control YOU? Which of you is more “conscious”? Which of you has more “free will” relative to the other?
Okay, so now substitute TLOP for YOU and YOU for CAR. TLOP is controlling your actions, your thoughts, your behavior, in an analogous manner to YOU controlling your CAR, except YOU are the inanimate object by comparison now.
In other words, for TLOP to control you TLOP must be more conscious than you are in the same way that YOU must be more conscious than your CAR when you control your CAR.
Aaron Hartter: 4. Judgment. A person is able to judge the various options presented before him, we might identify this with deliberation or say it stems from deliberation.
Computer programs also make judgments (or “choices” if you prefer), but I am betting that you would not conclude that computer programs have “free will”.
You make an argument against Determinism, but I don’t see an argument for “free will”. “free will” is the Atheist’s “God”. Don’t let yourself be convinced that “free will” is the goal or the purpose of your existence. “free will” (even if it existed) would only be a means to an end – a “tool” for achieving your true goal and purpose. However, if there is another tool — a superior one — then it would be foolish to continue using “free will”.
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 6:23 am
The Laws of Physics (TLOP) control the behavior of ALL “matter”.
Your physical brain is made of “Matter” and nothing else.
Ergo – TLOP (or “God”) controls the behavior of YOU (completely).
Though it may be indisputable that the brain is purely material, I’m not sure Aaron would stipulate that the mind is purely material. But I should probably let him speak for himself.
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 10:02 am
Mike Said:
‘However, an impossible choice is no choice at all, therefore the consideration by Jeannette Lee, pre-eminent lady of the cue, to “make out” with Aaron Hartter, being clearly and a prior impossible, is no choice at all. ‘
Hey, a guy can dream can’t he?
Aaron
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 4:51 pm
“The Laws of Physics (TLOP) control the behavior of ALL “matter”.
Your physical brain is made of “Matter” and nothing else.
Ergo – TLOP (or “God”) controls the behavior of YOU (completely). “
If by “controls” Serpent means “determines” then of course he is simply assuming his conclusion.
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 4:57 pm
shonk: Though it may be indisputable that the brain is purely material, I’m not sure Aaron would stipulate that the mind is purely material. But I should probably let him speak for himself.
To a Materialist what else exist ultimately other than “matter”?
According to the Philosophy of Materialism Matter makes Consciousness and any assertion which brings this view under the slightest scrutiny is the harbinger of an extremely slippery slope.
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 5:05 pm
Aaron: Hey, a guy can dream can’t he?
It’s funny you mention that.
Maybe you do have Free Will? If the person reading this is the only entity to exist and everyone else is just a figment of your imagination than there would be no one to argue that you didn’t have Free will. Since it would be Your Subconscious that was generating this reality, then ultimately it would be You creating and presenting the information to yourself, and with no “outside influences” (no external inputs) you would be genuinely free of the Deterministic effects of others (other sources of information).
Maybe you are dreaming right now? Can you recall learning how to walk, or being “born”? Maybe you cannot recall being formed in the “Big Bang” either?
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 5:10 pm
Serpent (previously): The Laws of Physics (TLOP) control the behavior of ALL “matter.
Your physical brain is made of “Matter” and nothing else. .
Ergo – TLOP (or “God”) controls the behavior of YOU (completely). .
John Kennedy: If by “controls” Serpent means “determines” then of course he is simply assuming his conclusion.
Are you arguing that The Laws of Physics do not Determine (or control) the behavior of ALL “matter”, Mr. Kennedy?
That seems a rather odd position for an alleged Materialist to be taking … ?
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 5:34 pm
To a Materialist what else exist ultimately other than “matter”?
Last I checked, Aaron’s not a materialist.
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 5:47 pm
And how about yourself shonk?
November 18th, 2003 at Nov 18, 03 | 11:25 pm
“Are you arguing that The Laws of Physics do not Determine (or control) the behavior of ALL “matter”, Mr. Kennedy?”
In one important sense of the word “determine’ it is widely accepted that physical laws do not determine all behavior of matter, since some such behavior is held to be impossible in principle to predict. There is a difference between constraining behavior and detrmining it.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 12:06 am
John Kennedy: physical laws do not determine all behavior of matter, since some such behavior is held to be impossible in principle to predict.
Actually despite the popular misconception to the contrary, quantum mechanics is wholly deterministic, it is just that you cannot observe the mechanism.
But that point aside, when YOU drive your CAR does it matter that “some of your behavior is impossible to predict” from the POV of the CAR for YOU to claim to be controlling the CAR?
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 6:24 am
Actually despite the popular misconception to the contrary, quantum mechanics is wholly deterministic, it is just that you cannot observe the mechanism.
Mayhaps you’d like to explain under what definition of “deterministic” this makes sense?
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 8:45 am
The Serpent said, ‘Define the term “Think”.
Perhaps you don’t “think” at all, perhaps you only Perceive? How do you know that the Perception of yourself Perceiving (Self-awareness) is not creating an illusion that you are “Thinking”? ‘
Wow, I never thought about that before. But, in all seriousness, that is a ridiculous and inconsistent position to hold, and seems quite contradictory. And, as I point out below, the libertarian need not reply to such conjecture.
The Serpent said, ‘How about the option to run a red light at a busy intersection, or the option not to run that red light? The problem is that if you never select the alternative option you are really only imagining (or pretending) that you have an option.’
So let me get this straight, you are saying that what was actually done was actually done. Wow! You just blew my mind. All this time I thought the libertarian held that an agent could have done otherwise, now I find out that the libertarian holds that an agent can actually do both what was actually done and what was not actually done in the same actual world.
Maybe you are saying that no one has ever run a red light at a busy intersection and therefore libertarianism is false. Well, for some reason, I think that maybe some one somewhere has run a red light at a busy intersection. And even if no one ever has that does not show that libertarianism is false.
The Serpent said, ‘But that is okay, because if running red lights is the definition of “free will” then it sounds as if you have to be either insane or evil to possess “free will”. ‘
Wow, you are really… what’s the word I’m looking for?
The Serpent said, ‘Because a billiard ball is the product of (is generated by) a Graviton, whereas You are a Graviton. You have self-awareness, the billiard ball (relatively speaking) does not.’
I’m a graviton? I feel so special. Now, what in the hell are you talking about?
The Serpent said, ‘Actually all action (output) is preceded by input, so in reality consciousness is not much different than billiard balls in this regard. ‘
Without accepting the underlying assumption, I would like to point out that this is not way disproves libertarianism or proves determinism.
The Serpent said, ‘Think of it like this. When you get inside your car for a drive you have an ability that you did not possess when you were not inside of the car (options). You can think of your physical body (as opposed to your mind) in a similar way. When you are inside of your physical body you possess abilities that you do not possess without it. ‘
When I’m not in my car can I still push my foot down, in a way that in my car would result in acceleration?
The Serpent said, ‘Question begging my friend. I could just as easily say:
When a graviton acts, a graviton acts based solely on the laws of Gravity. My purpose in writing this is to clear up the “free willer’s” confusion. The “free willer’s” purpose in arguing [for the existence of] “free will” is to convince himself that he does have free will. ‘
Sure, if you wanted to argue that free will exists. But otherwise, no.
The Serpent said, ‘The Laws of Physics (TLOP) control the behavior of ALL “matter”.
Your physical brain is made of “Matter” and nothing else.
Ergo – TLOP (or “God”) controls the behavior of YOU (completely). ‘
Ahh, the fallacy of composition, we meet again. Even if I accepted your premises, which I do not, you would still be arguing that the whole has all of the same attributes as the parts. But, as I have already pointed out, that is not true.
The Serpent said, ‘When YOU drive your CAR do YOU control the CAR, or does the CAR control YOU? Which of you is more “conscious”? Which of you has more “free will” relative to the other?
Okay, so now substitute TLOP for YOU and YOU for CAR. TLOP is controlling your actions, your thoughts, your behavior, in an analogous manner to YOU controlling your CAR, except YOU are the inanimate object by comparison now.
In other words, for TLOP to control you TLOP must be more conscious than you are in the same way that YOU must be more conscious than your CAR when you control your CAR.’
T-Lop, ain’t that that popular rap artist? I’m sorry, but that’s the only way I could make sense of what you said.
The Serpent said, ‘Computer programs also make judgments (or “choices” if you prefer), but I am betting that you would not conclude that computer programs have “free will”. ‘
I think you misunderstand me, but then again, what’s new?
The Serpent said, ‘You make an argument against Determinism, but I don’t see an argument for “free will”.’
I don’t have to, and it wasn’t my intention to (I might add that while I didn’t intend to, to an extent, I think such resulted). In any sense that there is a burder of proof, it is decidely on the determinist. I just have to show that it is possible that an act be free to disprove determinism.
The Serpent said, ‘”free will” is the Atheist’s “God”. Don’t let yourself be convinced that “free will” is the goal or the purpose of your existence. “free will” (even if it existed) would only be a means to an end – a “tool” for achieving your true goal and purpose. However, if there is another tool — a superior one — then it would be foolish to continue using “free will”. ‘
So, even if I have free will, I should choose not to use it? Alright.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 8:48 am
‘It’s funny you mention that.
Maybe you do have Free Will? If the person reading this is the only entity to exist and everyone else is just a figment of your imagination than there would be no one to argue that you didn’t have Free will. Since it would be Your Subconscious that was generating this reality, then ultimately it would be You creating and presenting the information to yourself, and with no “outside influences” (no external inputs) you would be genuinely free of the Deterministic effects of others (other sources of information).
Maybe you are dreaming right now? Can you recall learning how to walk, or being “born”? Maybe you cannot recall being formed in the “Big Bang” either?’
You just made a great argument against determinism without even realizing it. How cool. Of course, it would have to be slightly modified, but parts are there, they really are.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 4:46 pm
shonk: Mayhaps you’d like to explain under what definition of “deterministic” this makes sense?
Read Heisenberg carefully. He never says that there is no mechanism. He only says that it is impossible (for us) to observe the mechanism.
… and of course there is always the Copenhagen interpretation that so many Materialists like to forget about …
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 5:30 pm
The Serpent (previously): Define the term “Think”.
Perhaps you don’t “think” at all, perhaps you only Perceive? How do you know that the Perception of yourself Perceiving (Self-awareness) is not creating an illusion that you are “Thinking”?
Aaron Hartter: Wow, I never thought about that before. But, in all seriousness, that is a ridiculous and inconsistent position to hold, and seems quite contradictory.
If it was inconsistent then you should cut out all of the obfuscation and just point out the inconsistency.
The Serpent (previously): How about the option to run a red light at a busy intersection, or the option not to run that red light? The problem is that if you never select the alternative option you are really only imagining (or pretending) that you have an option.
Aaron Hartter: So let me get this straight, you are saying that what was actually done was actually done.
I am saying that perceiving two paths is not “free will” if you are only permitted to travel One path.
Aaron Hartter: All this time I thought the libertarian held that an agent could have done otherwise …
A libertarian or a Materialist? Are you suggesting that atoms make “choices”? You’ll have to explain what you mean.
Aaron Hartter: … now I find out that the libertarian holds that an agent can actually do both what was actually done and what was not actually done in the same actual world.
Are you trying to confuse yourself or other Individuals reading this thread?
How often do you actually run red lights without any reason or cause?
Aaron Hartter: Maybe you are saying that no one has ever run a red light at a busy intersection and therefore libertarianism is false.
I am saying that no one ever perceives a red light and runs it without reason or cause. Well … at least not if they are sane.
Aaron Hartter: Well, for some reason, I think that maybe some one somewhere has run a red light at a busy intersection.
If you or someone else you know is running red lights without reason or cause then I would conclude that you and your friend were either insane, or evil (malevolent).
The Serpent (previously): Because a billiard ball is the product of (is generated by) a Graviton, whereas You are a Graviton. You have self-awareness, the billiard ball (relatively speaking) does not.
Aaron Hartter: I’m a graviton? I feel so special.
And I here I thought your existence was meaningless A-Theist?
Aaron Hartter: Now, what in the hell are you talking about?
I see no point in explaining something that:
A) You already understand, or
B) You obviously will fail to comprehend due to your inherent nature.
The Serpent (previously): Actually all action (output) is preceded by input, so in reality consciousness is not much different than billiard balls in this regard.
Aaron Hartter: Without accepting the underlying assumption, I would like to point out that this is not way disproves libertarianism or proves determinism.
Why don’t you try pointing out a logical reason why we should believe you instead of relying on mysticism and our faith in your word?
The Serpent (previously): Think of it like this. When you get inside your car for a drive you have an ability that you did not possess when you were not inside of the car (options). You can think of your physical body (as opposed to your mind) in a similar way. When you are inside of your physical body you possess abilities that you do not possess without it.
Aaron Hartter: When I’m not in my car can I still push my foot down, in a way that in my car would result in acceleration?
Yes … except when you are not in your car you don’t go 50+ mph when you push your foot down.
The Serpent (previously): ‘The Laws of Physics (TLOP) control the behavior of ALL “matter”. Your physical brain is made of “Matter” and nothing else. Ergo – TLOP (or “God”) controls the behavior of YOU (completely).
Aaron Hartter: Ahh, the fallacy of composition, we meet again.
You Discordians are predictable if nothing else …
Aaron Hartter: Even if I accepted your premises, which I do not …
Why not Materialist???
Aaron Hartter: … you would still be arguing that the whole has all of the same attributes as the parts. But, as I have already pointed out, that is not true.
Not true for YOU or not true for the universe as a whole? Why one but not the other?
The Serpent (previously): When YOU drive your CAR do YOU control the CAR, or does the CAR control YOU? Which of you is more “conscious”? Which of you has more “free will” relative to the other?
Okay, so now substitute TLOP for YOU and YOU for CAR. TLOP is controlling your actions, your thoughts, your behavior, in an analogous manner to YOU controlling your CAR, except YOU are the inanimate object by comparison now.
In other words, for TLOP to control you TLOP must be more conscious than you are in the same way that YOU must be more conscious than your CAR when you control your CAR.
Aaron Hartter: T-Lop, ain’t that that popular rap artist? I’m sorry, but that’s the only way I could make sense of what you said.
Yes, I suppose perceiving the truth can be a scary thing for an entity of your species?
The Serpent (previously): Computer programs also make judgments (or “choices” if you prefer), but I am betting that you would not conclude that computer programs have “free will”.
Aaron Hartter: I think you misunderstand me
Yes, but I have noticed you don’t seem to be too concerned about that. Perhaps you enjoy being misunderstood? Perhaps confusion, distortion, misdirection, and obfuscation are inherent to your nature?
The Serpent (previously): You make an argument against Determinism, but I don’t see an argument for “free will”.
Aaron Hartter: I don’t have to, and it wasn’t my intention to…
Of course not, because you want to confuse people into believing that they possess the same unexplainable magical powers that you claim to possess.
I’m not buying it myself; but then again, there are plenty of people who believe that John Edwards can talk to dead people, so go figure?
Aaron Hartter: In any sense that there is a burden of proof, it is decidely on the determinist. I just have to show that it is possible that an act be free to disprove determinism.
Right. Kind of like if I am a Christian fundamentalist there is a burden of proof which falls decidedly on the Atheists (Materialists) to demonstrate that my “God” does not exist. The fundamentalist Christian only has to show that it is possible for his “God” to exist.
At least according to your logic.
The Serpent (previously): “free will” is the Atheist’s “God”. Don’t let yourself be convinced that “free will” is the goal or the purpose of your existence. “free will” (even if it existed) would only be a means to an end – a “tool” for achieving your true goal and purpose. However, if there is another tool — a superior one — then it would be foolish to continue using “free will”.
Aaron Hartter: So, even if I have free will, I should choose not to use it? Alright.
Something like that.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 5:35 pm
The Serpent (previously): Define the term “Think”.
Perhaps you don’t “think” at all, perhaps you only Perceive? How do you know that the Perception of yourself Perceiving (Self-awareness) is not creating an illusion that you are “Thinking”?
Maybe you do have Free Will? If the person reading this is the only entity to exist and everyone else is just a figment of your imagination than there would be no one to argue that you didn’t have Free will. Since it would be Your Subconscious that was generating this reality, then ultimately it would be You creating and presenting the information to yourself, and with no “outside influences” (no external inputs) you would be genuinely free of the Deterministic effects of others (other sources of information).
You know that you are certainly capable of generating a “reality”. You do it every night when you dream. Maybe you are dreaming right now? Can you recall learning how to walk, or being “born”? Maybe you cannot recall being formed in the “Big Bang” either?
Aaron Hartter: You just made a great argument against determinism without even realizing it.
Sure but only if Solipsism is true and I am merely a figment of your imagination, in which case “I” didn’t make any argument …
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 6:03 pm
Read Heisenberg carefully. He never says that there is no mechanism. He only says that it is impossible (for us) to observe the mechanism.
Which is rather different from asserting that there necessarily is a mechanism. So, unless you have superpowers, I don’t see how you are more justified in claiming QM is “wholly deterministic” than JTK is in claiming it’s not.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 6:21 pm
shonk: Which is rather different from asserting that there necessarily is a mechanism. So, unless you have superpowers, I don’t see how you are more justified in claiming QM is “wholly deterministic” than JTK is in claiming it’s not.
“superpowers”? You mean like “free will”?
Look if you are claiming that QM is magically “random”, then how come I never experience this “randomness”??? I mean seriously shonk, how often have you approached a red traffic light, perceived that the light was red, and then “randomly” and uncontrollable run the light?
Besides, in recent experiments scientist examining images of particle collisions (after the fact) are able to determine both position and velocity at precisions far, far below the uncertainly limit claimed to be inviolate by Heisenberg and many other Materialist.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 6:42 pm
I never said it was random. But, if it’s deterministic, it is so in a weaker sense than is usually implied by the word.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 7:04 pm
shonk: I never said it was random. But, if it’s deterministic, it is so in a weaker sense than is usually implied by the word.
I must confess that the subject of Fatalism is much more “complex” (a word I loathe to use) than I usually let on, but at the end of the day, Fatalism is still the most accurate term to describe it. Unfortunately my “powers of subtilly” are all but useless in this reality.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 8:33 pm
Fatalism is much more “complex” (a word I loathe to use) than I usually let on
Having just re-read the relevant section in my Quantum Logic book, I’m curious how your “powers of subtilly” (subtlety?) would resolve the EPR paradox.
November 19th, 2003 at Nov 19, 03 | 8:41 pm
Oooo … the EPR paradox!
That is an interesting dilemma for the Materialists – isn’t it?
Even Uncle Albert was puzzled by “spooky action at a distance” wasn’t he?
Of course it isn’t so unimaginable that certain Gravitons might want to Entangle in certain mutually beneficial configurations, would it now?
Scorp, I must give you your due, my Brother. You slammed this nail right on the head!
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 4:24 pm
The Serpent (previously): The Laws of Physics (TLOP) control the behavior of ALL “matter”. Your physical brain is made of “Matter” and nothing else. Ergo – TLOP controls the behavior of YOU (completely).
Aaron Hartter: Ahh, the fallacy of composition, we meet again. Even if I accepted your premises, which I do not, you would still be arguing that the whole has all of the same attributes as the parts. But, as I have already pointed out, that is not true.
Here is my problem Aaron, I don’t see how anyone could say they disagree with my little syllogism up above there, without also disagreeing with the fundamental tenets of Materialism at the same time (which is precisely why I worded it the way I did).
Now since Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Stedman have also made similar comments to me perhaps they will add their two cents on this point; but for any of you to reject those premises seems akin to claiming that:
1) There is a “non-physical” part (or portion) of your physical brain (or “Mind” if your prefer) which is not fundamentally “material” at its most irreducible level. Or …
2) That some fundamental thought process within the “Mind” either A) is able to “control” the laws of physics, or B) does not obey the laws of physics or is beyond the scope (or sphere of influence) of the laws of physics.
Now aside from the fact that BOTH of these claims would directly contradict the fundamental premises of materialism, BOTH of these claims could only be categorized as extraordinary. And I am sure you are ALL familiar with the mantra that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but so far I have only heard extraordinary claims. I see no evidence (extraordinary or otherwise) in support of your beliefs, and yet ALL of you claim to be “Rational Men”, and not Mystics.
Are any of you gentlemen prepared to shed a little light on this conundrum?
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 5:22 pm
Neither Kennedy not I have claimed that the mind is supernatural (which is what your options 1 and 2 reduce to.) Kennedy simply points out that it is contradictory for a thinking being to act on the notion that it cannot make choices.
The only thing I can directly observe is my subjective experience, although it seems a reasonable assumption that yours (well, at least most other peoples’) are similar to mine. My experience tells me that I can make choices in a meaningful way, and do so all the time. Your claim that I could not have made the other choice and my experience that I could have, are equally unverifiable without being able to step out and observe the universe from “outside.” This is problematic in that as soon as you can step outside, that outside is now part of the universe/reality, too, so you’re not outside after all.
If you could make a perfect simulation of my mind and run it twice through the same conditions, and see that it does the same thing each time, and does the same thing as my actual brain, we have two equally unprovable explanations: you would say, “see, it is a determined neural net,” while I would say that it simply made the same choices each time, and that the simulation had, in every way subjective to it, the same thoughts and experiences as me while it was running.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 5:59 pm
Andy Stedman: Neither Kennedy not I have claimed that the mind is supernatural (which is what your options 1 and 2 reduce to.)
I do not believe that anything in the entire Omniverse (set of all universes (all realities)) is supernatural, but assuming you could prove #1 or #2 true logically then they wouldn’t be supernatural.
Andy Stedman: Kennedy simply points out that it is contradictory for a thinking being to act on the notion that it cannot make choices.
And I would remind you and Mr. Kennedy that I have never claimed that we do not make “choices” only that those choices are predetermined by virtue of being determined algorithmically (as opposed to supernaturally (or “randomly”)).
Andy Stedman: The only thing I can directly observe is my subjective experience, although it seems a reasonable assumption that yours (well, at least most other peoples’) are similar to mine.
Sure … what is identical (the same (equal)) between us is called Objective.
Andy Stedman: My experience tells me that I can make choices in a meaningful way, and do so all the time.
Which in my mind is the same as saying you make “choices” algorithmically as opposed to making them magically.
Andy Stedman: Your claim that I could not have made the other choice and my experience that I could have, are equally unverifiable without being able to step out and observe the universe from “outside.” This is problematic in that as soon as you can step outside, that outside is now part of the universe/reality, too, so you’re not outside after all.
You are talking about something I would call A view from the Omniverse.
Imagine that the Entirety of Reality is like an Atom … or better yet, imagine that it is like one of those sets of Russian nesting dolls. The hypothetical outer most doll which contains all of the other dolls within it is referred to as “the Omniverse”. It is the most evolved and elaborate layer of reality. Within the omniverse are nested many layers (or shells) each layer being an individual “universe” with the laws governing that universe becoming simpler and simpler as you recede back through successively nested dolls. The inner most dolls (universes) have the simplest rulesets and operate at the lowest energy levels. They are less “elaborate” (less complex) than those which are above them (surround them). As you move upwards and outwards the universes have more complex rulesets and operate at higher energy levels.
Andy Stedman: If you could make a perfect simulation of my mind and run it twice through the same conditions, and see that it does the same thing each time, and does the same thing as my actual brain, we have two equally unprovable explanations: you would say, “see, it is a determined neural net,” while I would say that it simply made the same choices each time, and that the simulation had, in every way subjective to it, the same thoughts and experiences as me while it was running.
Yes, but haven’t we already performed this experiment? Aren’t we, in fact, conducting it right now? How many red traffic lights have you uncontrollably run lately? How often do you perceive the question what is the sum of 2 + 2? and the laws of physics cause your physical brain to respond with something other than “4”?
Isn’t the red traffic light similar to the double slit experiment, except now YOU are the particle and whether you STOP or GO is analogous to whether your waveform collapses to SLIT-A or SLIT-B?
Your Destiny may appear to be a gigantic tree-like structure stretching out before you (the “Worldtree”), but in reality you do not travel on the tree, but only on a single path – a jagged path like a lightning bolt. Your personal path of least resistance through Spacetime (same as Destiny). Your Worldline.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 6:22 pm
“Imagine that the Entirety of Reality is like an Atom … or better yet, imagine that it is like one of those sets of Russian nesting dolls. The hypothetical outer most doll which contains all of the other dolls within it is referred to as “the Omniverse”. It is the most evolved and elaborate layer of reality. Within the omniverse are nested many layers (or shells) each layer being an individual “universe” with the laws governing that universe becoming simpler and simpler as you recede back through successively nested dolls. The inner most dolls (universes) have the simplest rulesets and operate at the lowest energy levels. They are less “elaborate” (less complex) than those which are above them (surround them). As you move upwards and outwards the universes have more complex rulesets and operate at higher energy levels.”
This is as non-falsifiable as “God made the universe at 8:30 yesterday morning.” It is also a lot more complex.
Or, “it’s turtles all the way down.”
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 6:27 pm
This is as non-falsifiable …
Ohhh I disagree. In fact I would say it was a mathematical certainty.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 6:51 pm
Ohhh I disagree. In fact I would say it was a mathematical certainty.
Which would, of course, require a proof.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 8:46 pm
shonk: Which would, of course, require a proof.
There’s a proof alright!
It’s just that it is very difficult to articulate to Individuals who don’t believe that 2 + 2 = 4.
You see, people who believe that they possess “free will” essentially are claiming that 2 + X = ?, and it is very hard to explain any mathematics to someone with that as their starting point.
I can explain Determinism. I can articulate it, and therefore you can examine my logic for yourself. What I don’t see is anyone on the opposing side articulating the Logic behind “free will”, and after allllll this Time that leads me to the conclusion that there is a reason (in reality) why they can’t articulate it.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 9:05 pm
Andy,
It occurs to me that you may have misunderstood my analogy/metaphor above. Let me try another example.
From a point of view (POV) inside this ‘universe” you may see an object which you perceive as the color “Red”.
But from a POV in the omniverse you would not see “red”. Instead you would perceive the reality of red. You would perceive oscillating photons with a wavelength of approximately 6500 angstrom traveling at the speed of light.
“red” is the illusion (symbol) while oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light are the reality (deed/action).
Similarly “free will” is the illusion while Determinism is the reality.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 10:01 pm
“red” is the illusion (symbol) while oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light are the reality (deed/action).
That sounds a lot like materialism to me. And here, I thought you were making fun of them all along.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 10:12 pm
The Individuals who call themselves Materialist are actually pseudo-materialist from my POV.
But how about yourself Mr. Stedman? I have been assuming you are a (pseudo) materialist based on the tone and content of your posts, but ultimately my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The real question is DO YOU consider yourself a Materialist?
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 10:23 pm
Me? I’m an engineer.
Seriously, I don’t see either position (materialism/idealism) as being ultimately provable (or disprovable,) and haven’t put any time into learning all about them since it doesn’t seem useful to hold one over the other. If it comes down to it, in my everyday thinking I probably view the world from a materialist viewpoint. I assume that my coffee cup is still on my desk at work when I go home, even after the cleaning crew has left.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 11:04 pm
I assume that my coffee cup is still on my desk at work when I go home
I don’t consider myself an Idealist.
But the fact is that the primary reason you and I experience an objective reality is because of an intervening third party that is transmitting the same information to You as She is to Me. It is this common information (not “matter”) that manifest as a common frame of reference around us (i.e. the universe).
Now obviously you wish to pretend or imagine that this third individual (let’s call Her Tlop) is a non-conscious entity, and that is certainly your right. But claiming that She is non-conscious is analogous to claiming that You are non-conscious, and while you may not perceive the harm to this I can assure you that ultimately it is extremely harmful and even in the here and now it leaves you extremely susceptible to being taken advantage of.
But you don’t need to take my word for it.
November 20th, 2003 at Nov 20, 03 | 11:30 pm
But you don’t need to take my word for it.
Don’t worry, I won’t.
November 21st, 2003 at Nov 21, 03 | 9:59 am
I wrote a post responding to the serpent, but I deleted it, because I didn’t want to encourage him.
However, another one of his posts aroused my interest.
‘There’s a proof alright!’
That I would like to see.
I’I can explain Determinism. I can articulate it, and therefore you can examine my logic for yourself. What I don’t see is anyone on the opposing side articulating the Logic behind “free will”, and after allllll this Time that leads me to the conclusion that there is a reason (in reality) why they can’t articulate it. ‘
Funny you say that because the libertarian position can be meanfully expressed in first order predicate logic. This is not so with determinism.
November 21st, 2003 at Nov 21, 03 | 4:48 pm
Aaron Hartter: I wrote a post responding to the serpent, but I deleted it, because I didn’t want to encourage him.
So your dog ate your homework?
Ohhh Mr. Hartter! And I expected so much more from the “superior” worldview …
Serpent: There’s a proof alright!
Aaron Hartter: That I would like to see.
And I’ve been trying to show you. The first step is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4, but we seem to be having trouble getting past it. Here it is again:
TLOP controls Matter (2) + YOU made of Matter (2) = TLOP controls YOU (4)
Serpent: I can explain Determinism. I can articulate it, and therefore you can examine my logic for yourself. What I don’t see is anyone on the opposing side articulating the Logic behind “free will” …
Aaron Hartter: Funny you say that because the libertarian position can be meanfully expressed in first order predicate logic. This is not so with determinism.
I’m still waiting for you to simply define “free will” in a consistent and logical fashion. So far I haven’t seen even the tiniest scrap of evidence or logic for why I should believe you possess it. But right now you haven’t even precisely explain what “it” (“free will”) even is!
There are 3 of you (Misters Kennedy, Stedman, and yourself) who all seem to hold a nearly identical position, yet none of you can (or is willing) to even attempt to articulate that position in a logically consistent fashion. You all three claim to be Rational Men, yet in my experience when a “Rational Man” begins to become shy, and restrained, and reclusive when it comes to articulating the actual point-by-point logical rationale underlying his beliefs, then he begins looking less and less like a “Rational Man” and more and more like a “Mystical Man”.
November 21st, 2003 at Nov 21, 03 | 11:09 pm
Serpent: There’s a proof alright!
Aaron Hartter: That I would like to see.
And I’ve been trying to show you. The first step is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4, but we seem to be having trouble getting past it. Here it is again:
TLOP controls Matter (2) + YOU made of Matter (2) = TLOP controls YOU (4)
I see no nesting Russian doll multiverses here.
In order to claim this equality, you have to demonstrate that TLOP are comprehensive and that people are strictly material. So this merely argues that materialism = determinism. Since you seem to claim not to be a materialist, why be a determinist?
November 22nd, 2003 at Nov 22, 03 | 2:39 am
Boy, The Serpent is a *really, really* annoying idiot!
November 22nd, 2003 at Nov 22, 03 | 8:23 pm
it’s lungs all the way down.
lung happens to know of 22 helpful little letters. let the righteous ponder matters pertaining to the chariot.
lung,
master of the 221 (or 222) gates.
ps.but don’t be icky like uncle al.
November 23rd, 2003 at Nov 23, 03 | 12:00 am
Looking at the preceding posts, I note that The Serpent refers to “Uncle Albert”, and presume he means “Uncle Albert Einstein.”
lung (that adorable and enigmatic little creature) refers to “uncle al”. She advises:
“ps.but don’t be icky like uncle al.”
To avoid confusion, please note that lung is referring to Uncle Aleister Crowley, not Albert Einstein.
“Do what thou wilt shall be the hole of the Donut.”
November 23rd, 2003 at Nov 23, 03 | 9:17 am
“twenty two helpful little letters”
When God was about to create the world by His word, the twenty-two letters of the alphabet descended from the terrible and august crown of God whereon they were engraved with a pen of flaming fire. They stood round about God, and one after the other spake and entreated, “Create the world through me!
legends of the jews,louis ginzberg
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 4:14 pm
Shonk: I see no nesting Russian doll multiverses here.
A “multiverse” is different than an “Omniverse”.
For example, every time you stop at a red light there isn’t an inferior version of you some where in some parallel universe who always runs the light. I mean … how lucky would YOU have to be for that little fairy tale to be true?
Shonk: In order to claim this equality, you have to demonstrate that TLOP are comprehensive and that people are strictly material. So this merely argues that materialism = determinism.
Sure, but since ALL atheists are materialists and since Materialism is definitely true than Determinism must also be definitely true … Right?
Shonk: Since you seem to claim not to be a materialist, why be a determinist?
I’m not a pseudo-materialist.
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 4:19 pm
“Sure, but since ALL atheists are materialists and since Materialism is
definitely true than Determinism must also be definitely true … Right?”
I don’t see why either of those premises must be accepted.
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 4:19 pm
A: Boy, The Serpent is a *really, really* annoying idiot!
And just who or what compels you to say that Discordian?
Perhaps you’ll be the one who explains “free will” for me? (some how I doubt it)
———————
lung: master of the 221 (or 222) gates.
And here I thought I knew who had all the keys and who was guarding all the doors?
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 4:23 pm
John Kennedy: I don’t see why either of those premises must be accepted.
You mean you are Agnostic on the premise of Materialism?
I assume the other premise you are referring to is the notion that if Materialism is true that Determinism also has to be true. If you are asserting this is not the case you will have to explain what you mean, because as I have repeatedly stated I see no way it could be otherwise.
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 4:29 pm
I’m an atheist, and I observe phneomena for which I can tathom no materialist explanation - the experience of self for instance.
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 5:00 pm
John Kennedy: I’m an atheist …
Why can’t you be honest with me and acknowledge you are more accurately described as an Agnostic?
John Kennedy: … and I observe phenomena for which I can fathom no materialist explanation
That should tell you something. Are you saying it doesn’t?
“free will” has some major problems even if Materialism isn’t true. Have you given it much thought?
John Kennedy: the experience of self for instance.
Which is why I mention Solipsism.
Just what kind of “theory” forces you to deny the one thing that you are most certain about (i.e. the existence of your own “Mind”)?
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 5:34 pm
“Why can’t you be honest with me and acknowledge you are more accurately described as an Agnostic? “
I’m not agnostic, I reject theism.
“That should tell you something. Are you saying it doesn’t? “
I don’t understand the question.
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 5:45 pm
Sure, but since ALL atheists are materialists and since Materialism is definitely true than Determinism must also be definitely true … Right?
As Kennedy already pointed out, both premises are seriously flawed. Atheists need not be materialism and materialism isn’t “definitely” true.
And you still haven’t given a “mathematical” (or any other sort of) proof for the russian doll omniverse.
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 5:55 pm
John Kennedy: I’m not agnostic, I reject theism.
So do Deists, yet Deists aren’t Atheists.
John Kennedy: I observe phenomena for which I can fathom no materialist explanation.
So does that mean you are Agnostic with regard to Materialism?
—————–
shonk: As Kennedy already pointed out, both premises [Materialism & Determinism?] are seriously flawed.
How so shonk, specifically?
You boys keep repeating this, but you are always short on the specifics. Its like you are trying to hide something … ?
shonk: Atheists need not be materialism and materialism isn’t “definitely” true.
Explain how an Atheist can be an Atheist without also being a Materialist?
Are you also claiming Agnosticism on Materialism shonk?
When are you going to define “free will” for me? How many times do I need to ask?
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 6:23 pm
Serptent, you typically use words in very non-standard ways, so you’re going to have to be a lot more specific about what you mean for me to give useful answers.
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 7:13 pm
John Kennedy: I’m an atheist … I’m not agnostic, I reject theism.
What is the difference between believing in “God” and believing in “free will”? Since you have defined neither term for me, then how do I know that “free will” isn’t just another name for “God”?
Besides your use of the term “free will” seems to imply that it is a supernatural power beyond the scope of the laws of physics, and since you have been unwilling or unable to articulate your underlying logic for this belief why shouldn’t I believe that you are just another variety of Theist who is either confused (self-deluded) or being deliberately deceptive?
What evidence exist for “free will’ that doesn’t exist for “god”?
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 8:15 pm
“What is the difference between believing in “God” and believing in “free will”? “
Are you asking as a determined theist?
For the upteenth time: My argument that one cannot coherently proceed from the premise that one is determined does not rely on any definition of free will.
“Besides your use of the term “free will” seems to imply that it is a supernatural power beyond the scope of the laws of physics…”
It does not imply that.
November 24th, 2003 at Nov 24, 03 | 9:11 pm
Serpent (previously): What is the difference between believing in “God” and believing in “free will”?
John Kennedy: Are you asking as a determined theist?
A “Determined Deist” would be more accurate, but in either event your response looks more like a dodge than an actual response.
John Kennedy: For the upteenth time: My argument that one cannot coherently proceed from the premise that one is determined does not rely on any definition of free will.
(emphasis added)
Spoken like a true theist. For the upteenth time: My argument that one cannot coherently proceed from the premise that God does not Exist does not rely on any definition of God.
In other words, your assertion is simply an assertion. There is no underlying logic to it. It is simply a statement of Faith and dogmatic belief. It is question begging plain and simple. Not logical, not rational.
Serpent (previously): For Besides your use of the term “free will” seems to imply that it is a supernatural power beyond the scope of the laws of physics…
John Kennedy: For It does not imply that.
How do I know that, especially since you have repeatedly refused to explain what you are talking about? I have no idea what you mean when you say you have “free will” yet you will not (or can not) articulate precisely what you mean.
That doesn’t sound like a rational belief to me. It sounds like something you are afraid to examine or ponder too closely. Perhaps you are afraid of what you will find there waiting for you … ?
November 25th, 2003 at Nov 25, 03 | 4:43 am
Though I suspect nobody will completely agree with me, I have issues with the serpent’s implicit claim that belief in something that cannot be precisely articulated is irrational.
For example, I believe that 2+2=4, which most people would consider rational, even though I cannot precisely define what “2″ is in a way that seems obvious to the non-mathematician. However, at least in this instance I can precisely define the concept (though there’s a strong argument to be made that the structure of logic is, at best, tenuously connected to reality, whatever that is). More troubling, I think most of the choices I make in the course of a day are rational in the sense that, among the possibilities available to me, the course of action I choose is the one that maximizes my perceived personal utility. But I tend to think that it would be metaphysically impossible for me to precisely articulate what my “personal utility” is to another person.
Now, I know I’m putting the cart before the horse a bit with that last example, but the real kicker is this: I think the one thing we could all agree on is that it is rational for me to think that I exist and that I have a mind. However, I am not at all certain that I could precisely articulate what my mind is. Ultimately, all such definitions come down to is the following: “My mind is me”. Which is rather circular, if you ask me.
My point is not to be a sophist, but rather to explain why the “precisely articulated” standard is probably far too rigorous as a judge of what is rational.
November 25th, 2003 at Nov 25, 03 | 6:56 am
“I have no idea what you mean when you say you have “free will” yet you will not (or can not) articulate precisely what you mean.”
You are the one who keeps speaking of free will. I pointed out that you cannot proceed coherently from the premise that you are determined. I do not need the words “free will” to make that point. If you want to make a point that requires a defininition of free will then go ahead and define it for us.
December 1st, 2003 at Dec 01, 03 | 6:54 am
Articulation and Reason
In the comments section associated with Aaron Hartter’s post on free will at No Treason I posted the following in response to a claim made by someone calling himself "The Serpent" that belief in free will is irrational because "free…
December 11th, 2003 at Dec 11, 03 | 10:00 pm
Do I possess free will?
Damned if I know.
Do I really care?
Nope. It shatters into quantum foam on the rocks of pragmatism. There isn’t a thing I can do about it one way or the other. Either I’m a self determining entity in a chaotic universe or I’m playing out a planned/pre-determined series of motions that I have zippo control over.
So, my answer is to face the universe as if I do indeed possess free will. Why?
Because it’s the responsible thing to do.
February 11th, 2005 at Feb 11, 05 | 10:36 am
This comment thread should have never fallen off the “most commented” list.
Oh yeah, and I blogged about it here.
February 11th, 2005 at Feb 11, 05 | 10:51 am
I fixed the broken images in Aaron’s Jeanette Lee post.
February 11th, 2005 at Feb 11, 05 | 12:05 pm
I hate to break it to youse guise, but it’s been recently reported that John Conway (The Game of Life, Conway) has developed a mathematical proof that free will exists.
February 11th, 2005 at Feb 11, 05 | 1:01 pm
Conway is delightful and fascinating.
“He astonished even himself, 35 years ago, when he began to express the outcomes of games in numbers.”
March 28th, 2005 at Mar 28, 05 | 9:05 am
Whoa.
March 28th, 2005 at Mar 28, 05 | 12:11 pm
And they say truth is stranger than fiction…