home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26 / NN_1992_26.iso / spool / sci / philosop / tech / 3999 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-09  |  1.4 KB
  1. Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:3999 talk.philosophy.misc:2368 talk.religion.misc:20769
  2. Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!nasser.eecs.nwu.edu!ian
  4. From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
  5. Subject: Re: QM and Free Will
  6. Message-ID: <1992Nov10.001136.31220@eecs.nwu.edu>
  7. Sender: usenet@eecs.nwu.edu (Mr. Usenet)
  8. Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
  9. References: <1992Nov1.102609.13247@black.ox.ac.uk> <1992Nov2.020038.19948@guinness.idbsu.edu> <nyikos.720916492@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
  10. Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:11:36 GMT
  11. Lines: 19
  12.  
  13. In article <nyikos.720916492@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
  14. >  But
  15. >occasionally we come across axioms that seem *almost* self-evident,
  16. >and we also have a strong intuition for the *consistency* of various
  17. >axioms ["large cardinal axioms"].   
  18. >
  19. >Now, where do these intuitions come from, if we are *only* the
  20. >concatenation of atoms blindly following physical laws?
  21.  
  22. Uh, from interactions of those atoms?  Seriously, what is it about
  23. INTUITION in particular that seems to you to conflict with the idea of
  24. atoms blindly following physical laws?  It could be that having such
  25. intuitions (or at least, some characteristics which lead to having
  26. them) has some survival advantage.
  27. -- 
  28. Ian Sutherland
  29. ian@eecs.nwu.edu
  30.  
  31. Sans Peur
  32.