Reminds me of the quality discussion in Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance. Never really understood that book.

Jerry: Ah, you're crazy.
Kramer: Am I? Or am I so sane that you just blew your mind?
Jerry: It's impossible.
Kramer: Is it? Or is it so possible that your head is spinning like a top?
Jerry: It can't be.
Kramer: Can't it? Or is your entire world just crashing down all around you?
Jerry: All right, that's enough.

Good site, I just saw a pretty good essay on Jack Thompson and how he's both right and wrong.

Yeah it is a pretty cool site. I was thinking about posting this one from the same place but I might as well put it here.

They predict a game crash with the next gen consoles.

Sweet -- they forgot to mention the revolution, who's online games and controller will have all sorts of novelty associated with it. Nintendo will rise again!

Alright. I see what Wong is saying, but I think he is completely wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Like there are 5 specific jumps he makes that are far-reaching. Yes, in reality nothing we do on our tiny blue marble has an effect on the universe. But saying that we don't have free will because of the predictability of atomic interactions -- that is a false basis for an arument.

Atomic interactions depend on subatomic interactions which are inherently random, (something that good ol' Heisey proved himself I think). This clockwork idea appealed to older physicists. We all know Einstein's famous line of protest against quantum physhics: "God doesn't play dice" or "It's as if God is playing dice with the universe". So there's that point.

But okay, let's say that the randomness we measure in subatomic particles is just an illusion, and everything was destined since the big bang. As long as we're making grand and enormously sweeping arguments, how do we know that that the big bang "core" was perfect and without randomness? What if the randomness that could manifest itself as free will was built into the big bang, or even the thing that made it? (Which on a side note, could be from 2 gigantic p-branes smashing together, with the insanely huge resulting force materializing as particles in our universe?)

So anyway, this article wasn't horrific, just kind of uninformed. Maybe it didn't do a good enough job of explaining scientific materialism.

Jt, I know you read a bunch of physics books, what do you think?

Sorry Pola. I'm trying to think of an eloqeunt response and I'm a little drinky right now. I will get to it. Promise.

I will answer in one simple thought (remember I don't agree completley with the argument): There is no such thing as randomness. What we understand as a random change of events, even on the subatomic level, are still occurences based on physical laws. The way a billiard ball strikes another can be predicted no matter how random we may percieve the event at the moment.
Even if something 'appears' random doesn't mean that it is. If we can agree that the idea of physics, and all sciences for that matter, are intended to eliminate randomness from what we percieve then everything is predictable. To simplify I would say that randomness in any dimension is a defeat of science. (remember this is a philisophical theory based on hard science, not the other way around. Meaning it has logical points not necessarily based on hard science)
If randomness exists then science in any form is pointless and unpredictable. This may satisfy bypassing observers but it cannot be the conclusion of scientific thought. To summarize I think the basis of your thesis is flawed in assuming there such a thing as 'random', if this were true then all of science would be a waste of time.

No, I'm pretty sure that quantum mechanics has an inherent randomness, but that arises from our act of measuring the system. But I'm right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_theory

I know you say you're right but I think you have conceded the point by stating: "That arises from our act of measuring the system." Meaning, at least as I understand, that it may not be random, we just can't measure accuratley enough yet. Therefore, I'm right. Flame on.