Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wu1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!cmcl2!rocky2!cubsvax!wu1!rf From: rf@wu1.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: YAOFW (Yet another Omni/Free Will) Message-ID: <254@wu1.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Feb-84 13:08:17 EST Article-I.D.: wu1.254 Posted: Wed Feb 29 13:08:17 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 10:59:37 EST References: <858@ssc-vax.UUCP> Organization: Western Union Telegraph, Mahwah, NJ Lines: 22 As part of a discussion of free will, Dave Norris writes: A cannon ball doesn't have the ability to change course, even if it had the free will to do so. According to quantum mechanical findings, a cannon ball can change course. There is a sense in which automata capable of random behaviour can do more than strictly deterministic automata -- a fact of considerable value to network designers, who use routing programs based on such methods. So, I pose these questions: 1. Can we construct systems which will not work without randomness? 2. Do such things exist in nature? 3. Does what we call "free will" actually consist of randomness? Randolph Fritz