h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The original entry is at http://www.h2g2.com/A251696, and a number of contrasting and conflicting viewpoints are attached to it.

I'm still annoyed that this made it through to the edited guide in its current form - ir seems to be largely opinion, showing one researchers view of free will which is far from universally acknowledged as fact. Worse, it categorises all who believe in a deterministic universe as "miserable and fatalistic" - I continue to find that offensive.

I would have hoped that at the least a sub-ed or TPTB would have found the time to add a few "some people think that" in appropriate places. I know, I know - if I disagree I should write my own entry on the subject...

The argument from "Free Will - The Answer" onwards is a rehash of Pascal's Wager, applied to free will. So I'll plug my entry on the subject - http://www.h2g2.com/A341920 . Bet you saw that coming.

Yeah.

The objections I raised in the peer review thread still stand. But I'm not going through all that again.

I didn't participate in the Peer Review thread. But I will agree here. It seems to me that applying theories from quantum physics about how particles behave to the human brain (which is more than a mere collection of particles and which isn't entirely understood at this time) is about as misguided as Social Darwinism. Eugenics, anyone?

I can't find the peer review thread any more. It seems they get vaped when they enter the edited guide...

You are kidding me! I put more effort into that than .... anything .... for ages!

"I'm still annoyed that this made it through to the edited guide in its current form - ir seems to be largely opinion..."

Was it just me, or was that just the opinion of the phycicians? You should clobber them instead and not the poor editor

Perhaps the entry was destined to get into the guide and we really had no choice. Or we had no choice but to make that choice. My head hurts.

Actually, I think they're supposed to get moved to the forum of the entry. Have you looked down here?

Well, speaking as a (retired) physicist, it ain't my opinion...

I don't see how quantum physics was supposed to have /supported/ free will, come to that. Just cos something is random, doesn't mean that it's free.

Well, I found the peer review thread, though it doesn't seem to be attached here. I wonder if a link would work? http://www.h2g2.com/f48874?thread=67128 But, anyway. What annoys me (as a non-scientist) about the article is that it assumes that free will can be defined as "what everyone thinks it is", which seems to boil down to the ability to make decisions based on options, and that determinism totally destroys our ability to make reasoned decisions. Which is pants, frankly, and in my opinion entirely due to the fact that 1 Free will has been presented (not in the article, I admit)as something that separtates us from the animals, makes us unique in creation. The odd thing about this is that even people who scoff at the existance of god, get real shirty if their free will is challenged. 2 I think this is because people get free will mixed up with cognative ability, and confused when determinism is presented as "you didn't have a choice". Does that mean you weren't able to choose? There weren't any options to choose from? They were forced into choosing one of the options? Well, that isn't determinism. It also annoys me that it implies that the subject of free will's existance was a no-brainer, at least until quantum came along, and that determinism as a concept was in fact an attack on quantum, not free will. I entirely agree with Lucinda that quantum , in its randomness, doesn't support free will (and doesn't do much for determinism either).

Maybe it's the opinion of every phyician who brought up the subject. Please don't ask me to name them *^_^*

PS. Its not, you understand that I have objections to the article conclusions. It would be OK if the premisis which it rested on were correct, namely that free will is good and determinism is bad.

Hi Everyone,

With reference to the subject title of this thread, we're going to make 'God' a topic of the week on 29 November. I've posted this fact in a couple of places, but here's what I said if anyone's interested...

'The God entry must be held to a high standard - just look at
what we're trying to define: something that we can't see; that some
people claim to feel and converse with, but others do not; that may or
may not have created the universe; that some say (rightly) has been
the cause of terrible acts of war and human rights abuses, that others
say (rightly) is a benign, good force that is a comfort for humanity and is a positive guiding influence on our morality.

'The trouble with the God entry as it stands is that it doesn't represent those that do believe in God - it represents some of the feelings of those who don't believe in God. And that's fine, but it doesn't go any way to defining God for those millions who go to church, say a quick prayer because they feel like it, have dedicated their lives to a religious order, or have faith in *something* but they're not sure what.

'The entry evokes controversy because it takes what appears to be an
Atheist's perspective. It is one sided. The trouble is that a number of
Researchers *have* raised eyebrows at some of the statements in the
God entry - even before we've put it on the front page. Here in the
editorial office, we periodically look at and talk about the God entry,
and in our latest effort to get something in the Guide that is balanced
on God, we've decided that we're going to make God a topic of the
week so that the Community can create a collaborative entry on the
subject - it's going up on 29 November. We really hope that the
creative process behind this will be as balanced and as intelligent as
some of the discussion on the subject thus far. I suspect we will be
including some of the content of the existing God entry, because there
are some incredibly valid points in there and, it cannot be denied, it is well written, it's just that there are elements in there that need
clarification.

'As a point of interest, Looneytunes has subbed the entry, and has
done a remarkable job of it. His version can be found at
http://www.h2g2.com/A429923.

'I'm sure that the debate will continue, it's a thorny issue after all... but thanks everyone for your input - we are listening and we're really hoping, just as you are, that there will be some progress!'

As for the entry on Free Will - we knew this was a problematic one. This is the kind of entry where different perspectives can be added to at a later date. All contributions welcome