"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:484363fb$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> For example, there's no known mathematical model to indicate where a
> specific electron is, and indeed if I understand correctly, experiments
> show there cannot be one.

Some syntatically correct questions can be meaningless. What colour is the
note C#?

> I strongly suspect there's no possible mathematical model for "free
> will" in its usual meaning.

The problem is that the usual meaning isn't. Plus you have to be aware of
and agree on the level of abstraction you are working with. An economical
question becomes practically meaningless at subatomic level of the atoms of
the cells of the human of the masses that create the demand. "Free will" is
at best a crude concept at individual human level, and it goes downhill from
there quickly at any other more fundamental levels.

> Experiments with gravity show the best theory we have for it is
> incompatible with the best theory we have for atomic interactions. What
> happens when someone proves that gravity is incompatible with quantum
> mechanics? That there cannot be a GUT?

Unfortunately (or fortunately), you cannot disprove reality. The question is
not whether or not there's a GUT (reality provides one working model at
least) but when/if we can come up with a manageable and non-ugly one.

> > Whether that model can be simplified, and can have predictive powers
> > or not is the question,

> If it doesn't have predictive powers, it's not an appropriate model.
> It's merely a summary of the past rather than a model of the actual
reality.

Past *is* "actual" reality. More so than future, less so than present.

> > A reality that can
> > not be expressed with a simplified model, would, in essence, be random
in
> > *all* aspects

> Nah. Your model would just be *wrong*.

Modelling randomness is easy (in theory anyway). It just won't have
predictive ability.

Post a reply to this message