Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!fortune!rpw3
From: rpw3@fortune.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics and free will... - (nf)
Message-ID: <2739@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Mar-84 04:06:24 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.2739
Posted: Sun Mar 11 04:06:24 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Mar-84 04:56:41 EST
Sender: notes@fortune.UUCP
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 48

#R:umcp-cs:-571900:fortune:21900013:000:2194
fortune!rpw3    Mar 10 20:17:00 1984

Let's see:

	"STABLE computing environment"?
	
Maybe you misunderstood or I wasn't clear enough. The uncertainty problem
with synchronizers is NOT a matter of bad design, it is inherent in ANY
digital system that must communicate with an "outside" (asynchronous)
world.  There is no way (even theoretically) to avoid it.

	"making random decisions...hot tea on the CPU".

The problem is not that a "random" decision gets made. A random decision
could be tolerated and is in fact expected (that's why the synchronizer
is there). It's that NO decisions (or sometimes MULTIPLE "decisions") get
made, and the logic then does any number of non-deterministic things, like
execute NO code, multiple codes, mixtures of codes, or worse. The microscopic
quantum effects can and do cause macroscopic system crashes.

As far as human thought goes, again I am not talking about "random", but
"non-deterministic" (which is why I mentioned the "S. Cat"). Since neurons
are subject to the same problems as any other synchronizers, no matter
how complete our model of the brain becomes, we will not be able to
predict its behaviour completely, since the completeness of our model
is in fact limited by quantum effects. Such effects ARE significant at the
macro level wherever binary decisions (neuron firings) are made from either
asynchronous digital inputs (other neurons) or analog inputs (perceptions,
hormone levels, sugar level, etc.).

As was so nicely pointed out in an editorial in Analog magazine (April 1984),
the most one can ever hope for is a statistical description of likelihoods.
The actual behaviour of an individual can only be discovered by examination
(observation).  ("O.k., cat, time to open the box!")

(This article goes into considerable detail on the appropriate and
inappropriate use of statistical techniques when dealing with humans.
While most of the article is concerned with classical mechanics [human
populations vs. "ideal gases"], the author does touch on the question of
quantum effects towards the end.)

Rob Warnock

UUCP:	{sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:	(415)595-8444
USPS:	Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065