Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker From: speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics and free will... - (nf) Message-ID: <5820@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Mar-84 14:14:28 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.5820 Posted: Fri Mar 9 14:14:28 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Mar-84 14:17:33 EST References: <2704@fortune.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 36 Digital computers are not all that deterministic. Get a local hardware wizard to explain about Heisenberg Uncertainty and the "metastable problem" in synchronizers. (Synchronizers are the gadgets that have to make decisions as to whether something happened or not.) Quantum effects show up in many places in modern semiconductor logic. MOST of the time they can be ignored, but... Ah! Good! This is very true. Tunnel diodes can only be explained via quantum mechanics. A cannon ball is a very simple device, however; not as obtuse as a tunnel diode. There are times when newtonian mechanics seems to totally break down altogether. In some cases where frictional forces are involved, traditional theory simply cannot describe what is observed. I view this, not as the introduction of random behavior or uncertainty, but of the inadequacy of theory to describe fact.... Besides, hardware doesn't count! I did specify a STABLE computing environment. Given that neurons have to make the same sorts of decisions as computer synchronizers (whether to fire or not), it seems that we should not be surprised to discover nondeterminacy in human "consciousness" (whatever that is!). Heisenberg + decisionmaking => SchroedingerCats Yes. Although remember, making a high-level conscious decision is MUCH different from one or two or a thousand random neurons firing. That's like saying a computer program can make random decisions by pouring hot tea on the CPU. -- Debbie does Daleks - Speaker