Posted on 08/16/2008 6:40:10 PM PDT by LibWhacker
If we have free will, so do subatomic particles, mathematicians claim to prove.
“If the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect—what is the source of the free will possessed by living things throughout the earth?”—Titus Lucretius Carus, Roman philosopher and poet, 99–55 BC.
Human free will might seem like the squishiest of philosophical subjects, way beyond the realm of mathematical demonstration. But two highly regarded Princeton mathematicians, John Conway and Simon Kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
This inevitbly leads to the question: Are there good atoms and bad atoms?
Does the rock have free will?
My cousin’s sister dated a sub atomic particle.
> Does the rock have free will?
This issue was addressed by the late, great Evan Harris Walker, in the Noetic Journal, if I recall.
A rock and a rock solid thought .......hmmmm.
Bad atoms tend to gravitate towards a single bad nucleus; these bad atoms expect their nucleus to generally travel across water molecules. There is a consensus of scientists that believe we should all follow these atoms and their nucleus, and agree that this is settled science.
Good atoms are in somewhat disarray, although expect them to somewhat coalesce to follow a decent good nucleus... if this happens, especially in the next few months, the good atoms will outnumber the bad atoms, and the world will be a better place.
Bad Atom
Good Atom
Not if Pelosi, Ried and their socialists cohorts have their way.
fyi
Only if they’re conservative Republicans.
Scientist watch to see if it will come after e even without the t for proof.
This is very much along the same line of the experiments based on two “entangled” spin 1/2 particles with net spin of 0. An application of Bell’s Theorem shows that the quantum rules, which are consistent with observed behavior, are inconsistent with any predetermined values such as described in the current article.
In the spin 1/2 case, the observation of the spin orientation along any axis are always opposite for the two particles, but the observations along perpendicular axes are uncorrelated. These observations could be produced by predetermined, but uncorrelated, sets of values for the observations. The paradox occurs because the spin observations along a third axis at 45 degrees to the other two are highly correlated with both, and Bell’s Theorem ( which is based on a simple statistical argument ) shows that this is impossible with any sequence of predetermined values for all three measurements.
I’m sure there’s some sort of difference in this new work, but I certainly don’t understand why the extensive discussion based on spin 1/2, dating back to the 1970’s, is not even mentioned.
Those researchers invested in the field known as the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (Skinnerians to the laity) believe that all behavior is determined by the environment and, thus, no free will.
Sorry , I don’t believe in “Peak Atoms”.
Only if they have read a copy of “The Purpose Driven Neutron.”
I recently finished “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the origins of life and the history of the universe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.