First of all, quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with free will. Free will, if understood properly, is a moral property of human agents. And whether someone is responsible for his actions has nothing to do with our final understanding of subatomic physics.
I understand your point, but I don't think that's quite true. Certainly free will is related to morals, and whether someone is responsible for their actions is important to the question of whether their actions are good. However, free will is essentially a metaphysical concept, regardless of what it means to the value theorists. The question of whether we are free to make choices is a question of the nature our world.
Also, I think is a rather bold statement to say that quantum mechanics has "absolutely nothing" to do with free will. If the universe is deterministic, then everything we do simply follows from the state of our brains at any given moment, which follows from the state at the previous moment, and so on, so that every decision we make was essentially "decided" by the initial state of the universe when it began. What is given is an actual proof of this fact (actually the contrapositive of it, which logically equivalent). And while it may be based on a few axioms, these axioms have been shown to be true in 100% of observed cases. There is almost nothing that can be proven without taking something for granted anyway. Even if you deny their proof, it is obvious that free will and determinism (and therefore free will and quantum mechanics) have some relation.
Humans et al. do not have free will and their actions are dictated by laws of physics; said laws are natural and immutable and will lead to a predictable model of the universe.
So far, no experiment has shown that we can predict the state of quantum system; only the probability of a certain state being measured can be predicted. As it appears, the "laws" in this case, while "natural and immutable", do not "lead to a predictable model of the universe." The universe simply might not be deterministic.
Either way, the article does not make any claim for or against free will. Basically it says that if the behavior of subatomic particles is truly deterministic, then humans cannot have free will. The essential question of whether there is free will or determinism is unaffected; this is more like a proof of the fact that free will and determinism are incompatible (something that has pretty much been assumed anyway).
OMG you can't quote the bible on Slashdot! What are you thinking!?
Actually, Genesis occurred to me too, but it was more the part where the serpent convinced WhatsHerFace to eat from the tree of knowledge, causing humans to aware of new things that they weren't before. That seems to be in line with this idea that snakes helped cause prehumans to grow bigger brains and such. Well, except for the fact that it wasn't good the humans; it was their downfall. *shrug* Close enough...
Yeah, details may be wrong/missing here; I haven't really been Christian since I was like 14. Biblical metaphors are fun, though.
Corporations don't exist to be humanitarian organizations. Their job is to make as much money as possible, while remaining within the law.
That's almost right, but technically, corporations exist to make as much money as possible. And that's all. While it is often more profitable to do business within the law than to break the law, that is not always true. You don't have to look very hard to find evidence of corporate law-bending/breaking; usually you can just look at Slashdot's front page.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with free will. Free will, if understood properly, is a moral property of human agents. And whether someone is responsible for his actions has nothing to do with our final understanding of subatomic physics.
I understand your point, but I don't think that's quite true. Certainly free will is related to morals, and whether someone is responsible for their actions is important to the question of whether their actions are good. However, free will is essentially a metaphysical concept, regardless of what it means to the value theorists. The question of whether we are free to make choices is a question of the nature our world.
Also, I think is a rather bold statement to say that quantum mechanics has "absolutely nothing" to do with free will. If the universe is deterministic, then everything we do simply follows from the state of our brains at any given moment, which follows from the state at the previous moment, and so on, so that every decision we make was essentially "decided" by the initial state of the universe when it began. What is given is an actual proof of this fact (actually the contrapositive of it, which logically equivalent). And while it may be based on a few axioms, these axioms have been shown to be true in 100% of observed cases. There is almost nothing that can be proven without taking something for granted anyway. Even if you deny their proof, it is obvious that free will and determinism (and therefore free will and quantum mechanics) have some relation.
Humans et al. do not have free will and their actions are dictated by laws of physics; said laws are natural and immutable and will lead to a predictable model of the universe.
So far, no experiment has shown that we can predict the state of quantum system; only the probability of a certain state being measured can be predicted. As it appears, the "laws" in this case, while "natural and immutable", do not "lead to a predictable model of the universe." The universe simply might not be deterministic.
Either way, the article does not make any claim for or against free will. Basically it says that if the behavior of subatomic particles is truly deterministic, then humans cannot have free will. The essential question of whether there is free will or determinism is unaffected; this is more like a proof of the fact that free will and determinism are incompatible (something that has pretty much been assumed anyway).
OMG you can't quote the bible on Slashdot! What are you thinking!? Actually, Genesis occurred to me too, but it was more the part where the serpent convinced WhatsHerFace to eat from the tree of knowledge, causing humans to aware of new things that they weren't before. That seems to be in line with this idea that snakes helped cause prehumans to grow bigger brains and such. Well, except for the fact that it wasn't good the humans; it was their downfall. *shrug* Close enough... Yeah, details may be wrong/missing here; I haven't really been Christian since I was like 14. Biblical metaphors are fun, though.
Corporations don't exist to be humanitarian organizations. Their job is to make as much money as possible, while remaining within the law.
That's almost right, but technically, corporations exist to make as much money as possible. And that's all. While it is often more profitable to do business within the law than to break the law, that is not always true. You don't have to look very hard to find evidence of corporate law-bending/breaking; usually you can just look at Slashdot's front page.