Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!leah!gbn474 From: gbn474@leah.Albany.Edu (Gregory Newby) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Randomness, the universe, and Turing machines Summary: ugh. please, not free will again Message-ID: <1024@leah.Albany.Edu> Date: 21 Sep 88 04:17:10 GMT References: <1369@garth.UUCP> <2346@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <1383@garth.UUCP> <936@l.cc.purdue.edu> Organization: The University at Albany, Computer Services Center Lines: 23 In article <936@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > Then there is free will. > > Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 No, No. Please, not free will again. It's been debated to death on comp.ai, with no result (except of course insult). I picked up a book by Karl Popper (_Of Clouds and Clocks_, actually a lecture) which reminded me of the discussion that went on here. He, as it happens, supports the notion of free will, but must conclude in the end that he has no way to test the theory. And if it ain't testable, it ain't science (ref: your introductory methods textbook from ___101). --newbs ( gbnewby@rodan.acs.syr.edu gbn474@leah.albany.edu ) ps: i *had* to say that.