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.