Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/photons-quasars-and-the-possibility-of-free-will/ <comment><USER3> > _Of course, randomness isn't the only thing necessary for free will_

Not only that, but randomness and determinism are equally against the (casual) idea of free will.

Free will, as commonly understood, means there's an "extra layer of abstraction" between the universe (material objects and their relationships) and me. What people called "soul".

It's not just that our decisions (will) are random instead of predetermined by a cascade of material interactions.

Note that if one presumes a soul, free will is then not an illogical impossibility. It's just an extra layer of abstraction: it can decide based on our material-timeline-history (our interactions with the universe and others), but it's not absolutely bound by them (in the way a deterministic brain would be).

A soul, in that sense, is like when a protagonist in a movie breaking the fourth wall. They exist in the world of the movie, but they have some footing outside of it. (Of course in the case of the movie, the breaking is scripted).

<comment><USER4> > Not only that, but randomness and determinism are equally against the > (casual) idea of free will.

I'm not sure that I'd agree. Maybe the layman doesn't think about how to reconcile determinism with their concept of free will, but it is possible. Talking about free will without a working definition is hard.

If free will is: " _You_ are free to make any choices presented to you."

Then it becomes simple to argue that _you_ are in fact making these choices regardless of whether what makes up _you_ is pre-determined. The same you would of course make the same choices, but then it is still _you_ making them. The outcomes and opportunity of the choices is irrelevant.

<comment><USER5> I'd define free will as used by the average person to mean the ability to make decisions that are based at least in part on something other than your makeup and environment.

<comment><USER4> I'll go poll the world and get back to you to see if you align ;)

<comment><USER6> Already been done. They do not: [https://philpapers.org/rec/ANDWCI-3](https://philpapers.org/rec/ANDWCI-3)

<comment><USER3> Or so says a paper. Assuming no methodological errors and replication, in which Psychology (this being posted in "Philosophical Psychology" is a very bad culprit, and stats/polls even more so).

<comment><USER6> Let's be fair, it's more than one paper. That's just the latest in a whole series of papers empirically testing lay people's intuitions on this question (see the citations).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My view on "free will" is that it's a non-falsifiable notion.

The universe isn't deterministic due to randomness. In absence of determinism in the universe's laws, free will is at least possible. However talking about it is like talking about the existence of God.

The question is this: what observations can you make that, if they were true, would lead to the conclusion that "free will" doesn't exist? And the answer is, in the presence of randomness, there are no such observations.

Think about it like this: if you could observe and analyze two universes in parallel, almost identical except that in one people have free will and in the other people don't, what differences would you be able to see? And the answer is obvious.

N.B. I'm not talking about compatibilism, which is irrelevant.

<comment><USER8> If you have a will, your will is not free. A slightly corny but apt analogy is one of an empty cup. An empty cup can be filled with anything, but once full it needs to be emptied again before it can accept a new substance.

I think this is a useful touchstone in the debate about freedom of will. - <USER2> moves the goalposts so that your requirement is the ability to shed will instead of the ability to pick new ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Consider the possibility that whether the future is predetermined or not has nothing to do with free will.

The persistence of the notion of free will seems to be an attempt to reconcile a feeling of what seems to be a very real, conscious and subjective "me in here" vs, what seems to be an objective, deterministic "world out there". This division is necessary for science to exist.

But what if there is a deeper truth than just being stuck with the question of whether "I" can control the outcome of events or "I" am powerless to do anything about them. Consider the possibility of access to knowledge before there's an intellectual division into a "me" and "not me", a knowing where the entire notion of whether there's free will or not becomes completely irrelevant. This seems to be the common theme running through various teachings of mysticism, from Zen to Sufism.

I don't think science should try and make use of mysticism, as science starts where mysticism ends (and vice versa), but any attempt by science to wrestle with the question of free will appears to me as pointless as an attempt of a Zen master to wrestle with solving problems in quantum mechanics. It's simply not in their domain.

<comment><USER10> > Consider the possibility that whether the future is predetermined or not has > nothing to do with free will.

If free will exists, that would seem to imply that people can make decisions that affect their future. Wouldn't free will therefore imply nondeterminism?

I agree that notfreewill does not imply determinism.

<comment><USER3> > _If free will exists, that would seem to imply that people can make > decisions that affect their future. Wouldn 't free will therefore imply > nondeterminism?_

Not necessarily.

"Free will" is being able to express your actual self (your will) in a decision.

But if on a matter that calls for A or B decision, you can make either A or B, then "you" are not a coherent thing (because you can go multiple ways. Wouldn't a person that is authentically themselves can only chose one option --the one truer to themselves and their ideas, courage, cowardice, etc.-- each time?).

So, what if there's only one possible outcome of each decision one makes each time, and the set of prior decisions (that they followed A in this matter, B in the other, and on on) is what defines you as you?

Then free will and determinism are the same thing -- the untangling of yourself as a unique being.

<comment><USER11> If that is so, then free will is a redundant concept (the outcome is actually determined without it), and the question becomes one of why do we feel we have, and are exercising, a choice between A and B.

As it happens, I am pretty sure that I am _not_ a coherent thing - or, at least, I would not rule out a putative explanation on the grounds that it would imply that I am not a coherent thing.

<comment><USER3> > _and the question becomes one of why do we feel we have, and are exercising, > a choice between A and B._

Perhaps there's no choice, but there's an examination/consideration of the alternatives. We mistake this examination as a choice process, even though we only have one choice (the one we end up making).

<comment><USER6> > We mistake this examination as a choice process, even though we only have > one choice (the one we end up making).

Or perhaps you're mistaken that "choice" was ever anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The idea that randomness gives rise to free will is ludicrous. If my brain randomly chooses to eat an apple on Monday and randomly chooses to eat a Pear on Tuesday how is that giving me more free will than if my brain was predetermined to choose an Apple then a Pear.

There is no way to even conceive of what free will could be, determined or not. Either the activity of your brain is causally determined by previous brain states and interactions with the environment plus or minus randomness, neither option gives you the intuitive notion of free will.

Edit: also the Nobel winner Gerard t'Hooft argues that even these quasar experiments don't rule out determinism. He argues that any closed deterministic system will have correlations across any distance in spacetime.

<comment> GuB-42 You may or may not have "true" free will with randomness, you definitely can't have it with determinism.

Random just means unpredictable. It means that the information about whether your eat a pear or an apple is nowhere to be found in the universe. We can only see it after the fact. Something has been injected in the universe from outside.

That something is undecidable by definition, therefore, it is outside the realm of science, and it may very well be free will, god, a soul, whatever. Having that randomness leaves an opening for metaphysical free will.

On the opposite, without randomness that form of free will is impossible. Everything is determined and science doesn't leave any space for these concepts.

<comment><USER12> So if this metaphysical 'force' is deciding your actions, that still is not free will. You can posit anything as the ultimate cause of your activity but that isn't free will, it's just a higher-level cause. Either things are ultimately caused (at whatever level, metaphysical or not) or they're just acausally random or some combination. Pushing free will into the realm of souls and God doesn't help.

However, your point about unpredictability is right. There are some processes that are fundamentally unpredictable, but this unpredictability can and does occur in a completely deterministic setting.

A completely closed deterministic system will have processes that are unpredictable to agents acting within the closed system, this is the nature of computational irreducibility as elaborated by Stephen Wolfram and more recently Tim Palmer.

Personally, I certainly hope we live in a deterministic universe because a fundamentally random or a-causal universe would be nihilistic to me. If things just happened for no reason then that seems far more distressing than the universe following (possibly a few elegant) well-posed and deterministic rules, even if some aspects of its future evolution are unpredictable due to computational irreducibility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've always thought of free will as an absurdity.

Here's my thought process:

If I make a decision, there's 2 possibilities:

      1. The decision is based upon prior information and states, therefore there is a deterministic causality

      2. The decision is not based upon prior causality: E.g. I have a "soul" and that's what decides.

However, if we look into 2, we arrive at the same problem:

      1. Either the souls decision is deterministic based upon metaphysical information

      2. Or the soul has a soul (where the same problem appears, turtles all the way down)

_3\. Or, if the choice is not based on any prior information, then we must conclude that it is therefore completely random (since its not based on anything)_

So, either there is no free will because all your actions are determined by past actions, or instead free will just means that part of your actions are just based on, essentially, the throw of a dice. In both of these cases, you yourself have 0 agency.

I think saying that Free Will exists when it equates to a random choice is absurd.

<comment><USER14> As usual, these kinds of discussions are really about what we mean by words.

What does "free will" mean? I think technically inclined people like us are easily led down the path you describe, but over the years I've become convinced that the kind of definition that leads you to "free will = random choice" is pretty pointless because it's so vacuous.

I like to take a step back and ask: why are we interested in free will in the first place?

In practice, what tends to be really relevant are questions like: are criminals responsible for their actions?

Free will is better defined as a shorthand for these kinds of questions. And in that context, it seems clear to me that even if our actions are purely deterministic, we can still have free will. What matters isn't whether our will is free of physics or determinism; what matters is whether or to what extent our will is free from the influence of other people and society.

Once you look at it this way it's also clear that there are no absolutes. We all influence each other, which puts limits on our free will, but we aren't just puppets, either.

<comment><USER15> Yup, free will is meaningless, there's no measurable difference between an universe which has a free will and one that doesn't.

> are criminals responsible for their actions?

Doesn't matter, what matters is - is a commitment to punish certain behavior decreasing number of people behaving that way? If so - punishing crimes makes sense, no matter if there's a free will or not.

<comment><USER3> > _Doesn 't matter, what matters is - is a commitment to punish certain > behavior decreasing number of people behaving that way?_

If there's no free will obviously not -- since any crime decision is predetermined upon the earlier states of the universe (even before we appeared on Earth), and any drop in crime in correlation with a "commitment to punish certain behavior" is just correlation itself, and not causation (both things being caused by those earlier states).

In fact, if there's no free will, then there's also no free decision of a "commitment to punish certain behavior" or not: all those decisions to make laws, punish certain behaviors, etc are already determined.

Without free will nobody can influence whether we create this or that law.

In essence, you started that "free will is meaningless" and then your whole argument was like as if free like totally exists and we can take actual non predetermined decisions.

<comment><USER15> > If there's no free will obviously not -- since any crime decision is > predetermined upon the earlier states of the universe (even before we > appeared on Earth), and any drop in crime in correlation with a "commitment > to punish certain behavior" is just correlation itself, and not causation > (both things being caused by those earlier states).

An asteroid hitting Earth is predetermined by early stages of universe too. Is the collision just correlated with dinosaurs extinction, or was it the cause?

When a ball hits another ball in snooker - is the movement of the second ball caused by the collision, or just correlated with it? In deterministic universe it was known since the start of time it will happen after all.

Why is it different when people are involved?

If everything is determined by early stages of universe - then you can still discover how exactly that determinism works between 2 particular events (no matter that they share a common causation chain higher up).

In the case of criminals and punishement assuming determinism - our brains deterministically evolved to deterministically respond to punishement by deterministically changing the behaviour when punished. This deterministically caused the brains to come to conclussion, that punishement makes sense. Then they deterministically punish crime, and criminals deterministically respond by avoiding being caught which reduces the crime.

No need for the free will at all.

BTW even if universe is not deterministic it doesn't mean free will exists. After all you wouldn't say dices have a free will.

<comment><USER6> > No need for the free will at all.

You're mistaken. Free will is needed to identify _who the criminal is_ in any given situation, ie. who are the morally responsible parties. You can't escape that with the arguments you presented, and you just skipped it to talk about justice, which is a whole separate matter.

<comment><USER16> >Free will is needed to identify who the criminal is in any given situation,

No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is.

Physical stimuli are basically all we need as intelligent beings to come to a conclusion about things we don't like happening to us, and thus ultimately make into moral laws or codified ones. These are the inputs, these are the causes. Then, once enough human beings have had those inputs result in a large enough collective coming to the conclusion that stuff is Bad, we end up with laws.

Then, whenever someone acts in a way that we have determined is Bad, they are the criminal. They do not need to possess free will for the rational thing to do to be to provide punishment for them, because punishing them ultimately changes the inputs used by others to reach decisions. Nothing about this requires free will - it's all just as applicable if you just believe the laws of physics and causality determine every choice we make.

<comment><USER6> > No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is.

Unfortunately not. If your gets car stolen, without free will, you can't assign responsibility to the "thief", because you yourself were a causal factor in your car getting stolen: had you parked somewhere else, your car wouldn't have been stolen. Had society or his parents better supported the "thief", he wouldn't have stolen that car. Had your city placed that street somewhere else, your car wouldn't have been stolen.

To designate the "thief" as _the_ "singular" cause that's _relevant_ , you need free will.

<comment><USER16> All of those things are true, and I don't need them to be untrue to assign the largest share of responsibility to the thief.

Having laws (and the enforcement of laws) in place is something we believe to be the most effective input in causing the Bad Things to not happen. As such, having them and enforcing them is purely logical. We have decided that having someone "broken" in such a manner that these inputs are not enough to result in them not doing Bad Things need to be removed from the public, and do so.

Let's even step away from laws and assigning moral responsibility there. Let's look at interpersonal relationships.

I love my SO. I try to avoid doing things that hurt her, because seeing her hurt fundamentally makes me unhappy. It makes me unhappy enough that it outweighs the personal benefits of whatever decision I was making. We would all agree that not being shitty to your SO for personal gain is a morally correct choice, but this is still all a matter of causality. Either you have negative stimuli to it from something more direct, such as in my situation, or perhaps just because of social pressure and the desire to conform, but morality still comes into existence from the causal nature of reality. Free will is not necessary to explain it.

<comment><USER6> > All of those things are true, and I don't need them to be untrue to assign > the largest share of responsibility to the thief.

You actually do. The very process of assigning "share of responsibility" is precisely the question that depends upon free will. If the thief stole your car only because someone was holding his wife hostage, now where does the responsibility lie? The circumstances immediately surrounding the car theft are precisely the same, but now an influence further back in the causal chain is presumably responsible. How would you differentiate these two scenarios without free will?

> I love my SO. I try to avoid doing things that hurt her, because seeing her > hurt fundamentally makes me unhappy. It makes me unhappy enough that it > outweighs the personal benefits of whatever decision I was making. [...] > Free will is not necessary to explain it.

Free will is necessary to explain why you are morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for your choice of whether to go with your inclinations.

<comment><USER16> >If the thief stole your car only because someone was holding his wife hostage, now where does the responsibility lie?

Still with the thief. He still has all of the other inputs into his system beyond just the fact that someone kidnapped his wife. Believing that causality ultimately determines every decision we make doesn't mean that I believe that it's a simple one to one mapping. He knows he can call the police - this isn't an action movie, and he's not the characters Jason Statham plays. If he is the characters Jason Statham plays, well, it doesn't really matter because he's not going to be caught anyway, and I'm left railing against the hypothetical thief that more often matches reality than your car getting stolen by the living embodiment of an action movie hero/anti-hero.

>The circumstances immediately surrounding the car theft are precisely the same, but now an influence further back in the causal chain is presumably responsible. How would you differentiate these two scenarios without free will?

By not believing that one changed input unrelated to all of the others somehow invalidates all of them.

>Free will is necessary to explain why you are morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for your choice of whether to go with your inclinations.

Free will is unnecessary to explain why I am morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for my choice of whether or not to go with my inclinations.

Both are assertions that do not stand alone.

<comment><USER6> > He knows he can call the police - this isn't an action movie, and he's not > the characters Jason Statham plays. If he is the characters Jason Statham > plays, well, it doesn't really matter because he's not going to be caught > anyway, and I'm left railing against the hypothetical thief that more often > matches reality than your car getting stolen by the living embodiment of an > action movie hero/anti-hero.

You're evading the question. The point of moral dilemmas is to highlight the qualities that meaningfully affect the outcome. We have here two scenarios, one in which the thief would be held responsible, and one in which he would not. Free will easily distinguishes these two scenarios, and since you claim we don't need free will to make such judgments, let's hear how you distinguish these.

<comment><USER16> >You're evading the question. The point of moral dilemmas is to highlight the qualities that meaningfully affect the outcome. We have here two scenarios, one in which the thief would be held responsible, and one in which he would not. Free will easily distinguishes these two scenarios, and since you claim we don't need free will to make such judgments, let's hear how you distinguish these.

Someone kidnapped my wife so I stole a car is not a valid legal defense, nor would I argue it is a valid moral defense. As I stated from the get go, I would hold the thief responsible in both situations.

<comment><USER6> > Someone kidnapped my wife so I stole a car is not a valid legal defense

That's not the scenario I posed, although perhaps the presentation wasn't clear. So to be perfectly clear so there are no misunderstandings, the thief was told to steal your car or his wife would be executed.

Clearly he's morally culpable for stealing the car in one scenario and not in the other. This distinction can be clearly made using free will. You claim you don't need free will to make this distinction, so I'd like to hear how you do so.

<comment><USER15> He is responsible for stealing the car in both situations. He has an excuse in one, but excuse doesn't stop responsibility, and both doesn't require a free will to exist.

To provide better example - one guy blackmails you to kill me, or he will kill your whole family. You still have a choice.

You make your choice or it's predetermined cause no free will - it doesn't matter.

You are responsible for your choice, and the blackmailer is responsible for the blackmail. You have an excuse why you choose the way you did, and it may be decided to be a good thing to do or evil, depending on the morality of particular person (basically the trolley problem).

With car the responsibility for stealing compared to the responsibility for a murder is negligible, so people focus on the second one. But both are still there, they don't cancel out.

<comment><USER6> > He is responsible for stealing the car in both situations.

He's _causally_ responsible yes, free will is about assigning _moral_ responsibility. The validity of various reasons for acting immorally is precisely the question that free will addresses.

<comment><USER17> > He's causally responsible yes

On one case, only as inevitable intermediary in the chain of causation, in the other as a necessary part of the ultimate, uncaused causation.

These are very different senses of "causally responsible".

> free will is about assigning moral responsibility.

Only indirectly, in the context of it being assumed axiomatically that having ones will be a necessary uncaused cause of the outcome is required for moral responsibility; it's _directly_ about assigning root cause.

<comment><USER6> > These are very different senses of "causally responsible".

The posters I'm engaging here don't believe in uncaused causation (nor do I), so there's little difference in the causal character of the thief's actions here in either case.

<comment><USER17> > The posters I'm engaging here don't believe in uncaused causation

Free will is, by definition, both uncaused and a cause of other actions. If you don't believe in uncaused causation, you don't believe in free will, but you can't discuss the meaning and implication of free will in any meaningful way while ignoring the entirety of it's definition _whether or not_ you believe in free will (or the broader conceptual class of uncaused causes of which free will is a part.)

<comment><USER6> > Free will is, by definition, both uncaused and a cause of other actions.

No it's not. The free will debate is about defining what free will actually means so that we can assign moral responsibility.

The scientific meaning of "free will" as experimenters being able to setup their instruments free from influence of that which they're measuring is not what's being discussed here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> To me, articles like these are littered with logical fallacies. I truly wonder if the quoted scientists really meant what the article says.

For example:

"And if our measurements are random, there is no way for the photons to know ahead of time which orientation will be measured. So, there can't be any hidden variable to determine the outcome. Whether we get the left or right shoe, or the left or right glove, the result is truly random."

The above assumes that the actual properties that lead to the specific measurements have to be communicated between particles. But there has been no research in finding out if these properties are truly encoded into the particles themselves. Maybe there are no hidden variables, and maybe there is no communication, but these properties are simply encoded into the light particles, by the way they are created.

"It's spooky because entangled objects have a quantum connection, even if they are light-years apart."

Or maybe they don't, and the appropriate properties are encoded into the particles themselves.

"Of course, randomness isn't the only thing necessary for free will."

Free will means the power to determine one's fate through a set of thoughts (logical or not). If there is actual randomness in the Universe, then there is random will, not free will.

<comment><USER19> > Maybe there are no hidden variables, and maybe there is no communication, > but these properties are simply encoded into the light particles, by the way > they are created.

I believe this is exactly what "hidden variables" means. Some unknown property that would be present in both particles before we measure it and constraint the possible outcomes. This is inconsistent with experiments, it was shown there is no such properties.

<comment><USER20> It's only inconsistent if you assume information can't travel faster than the speed of light, for which there is no basis besides gospel.

<comment><USER21> Science is no "gospel."

<comment><USER20> How is it science? We literally have direct empirical evidence that suggests the contrary, but physicists do complicated mental gymnastics to come up with other explanations that fit their preconceived notions better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A different view: if we live in a universe that branches into multiple universe at every $PLANCK_TIME, then free will could be our consciousness choosing the branch it follows without actually interacting with the universe.

<comment><USER23> Love this! As if God designed universe timeline to be immutable. The question is, by making choice B you get universe B unique to that branch you chose, but is it a new branch per person per choice? Or do multiple people get "switched" to that branch?

<comment><USER4> If you were to view people as a composition of their choices, then in the current branch every individual chose said branch. Every person who did not chose the current branch, is now a different individual.

If the universe is considered a set of individuals or object, then it's unclear whether a multiple paths could lead to equivalent universes or the same. It all depends on the category theory (is the composition of choices associative, etc).

That being said, I really don't like multiple/branching universes theories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This maybe is a question more about our egos than about the universe (which we do not just exist in, but are the most intricate part of). But is it even very much possible to begin to answer it?

What I mean is this: The idea of choice is a human concept, which seems to be made to be illusory by the fact that, for the most part, our universe is deterministic in nature.

But even in the case the universe is wholly deterministic, as the article's hidden variables theory proposes, then our choices would still be attributed to ourselves.

So in that case, what created ourselves is the big bang. And what created the big bang? Is it even possible to answer that?

The nature of time and the universe is not something that is understood. We understand a lot more than our ancestors due to the scientific method and the spread of the tolerance of Enlightenment-era ideals which allow its pursuit, but that seems to give the illusion that we understand the nature of our universe well-enough to answer these metaphysical queations.

Perhaps we are just in a bubble that is a kind of Sagan's Flatland. Perhaps we are some insignificant random combination of patterns, or perhaps not. We have no idea what we are. But I dont believe our ownership of our choices is refuted by a universe without randomness.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm a person who acknowledges everything is deterministic and free will is a facade. The two types of people I've encountered who desire the notion of free will: 1) Person with ego who needs to have a belief in free will. 2) Persons who has ego, gets annoyed by free will being a facade and refuses to think about it because "it doesn't matter" to this person.

I'm perplexed if the problem is singular between the two types of persons and if it's either: ego, desire, greed, selfishness, or these people really need a belief similar to persons of religious ideology to continue functioning as who they are subconsciously. To me it's fascinating to observe because I genuinely propose the world would be better when the majority lives by reason in reality; when it comes to law, health, the environment, finances, and social problems. The psychological impact would be the most exciting thing for me personally to witness as I cannot imagine any negatives of a majority understanding determinism compared to the madnesses today in society; where the majority "who blame everyone" or compare themselves to others unfortunate as the outcome wasn't determined before birth.

<comment><USER6> > The two types of people I've encountered who desire the notion of free will: > 1) Person with ego who needs to have a belief in free will. 2) Persons who > has ego, gets annoyed by free will being a facade and refuses to think about > it because "it doesn't matter" to this person.

This is a complete straw man. Let me describe the contrary claim: in my experience, the type of person who desire giving up free will either a) want to give up punishment and so confuse justice with moral responsibility, and/or b) are confused about what determinism and choice really mean. You appear to fall in the former category at the very least.

I suggest you read up a little more on the meaning of free will and Compatibilism specifically. There's a reason why the majority of professional philosophers are Compatibilists.

<comment><USER25> You don't have a good grasp on philosophy to suggest the meaning of free will and complatiblism. Yes the justic system is a disgrace to humanity and I understand determinism. Prove otherwise please from what I wrote and I'll be thankful. Instead it looks like someone with a hurt ego writing nonsense to me.

<comment><USER6> There's nothing to prove. Your comment had no substance, and advanced no arguments. It was a set of bald assertions without justification, and so can be dismissed without argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think either we do not have free will or we have some special brain that shapes probabilities that literally make the reality as we see.

And I always prefer to believe we are not special animals.

Still, as opposite as deterministic universe, we may do not have free will but the future is not determined. The future may be random at some scale, with most obvious sequence of events happening and yet not prohibiting different events to happen.

</comment><comment><USER27> The question of free will is bound up with the question of consciousness. We first need to understand what consciousness is, where it resides, and what its boundaries are, before we can understand free will. It is not possible to properly test a statement such as: "I have free will" without understanding what the "I" refers to

</comment><comment><USER28> Ah, the age old question where it doesn't matter if the answer is positive or negative at all.

Since it is opinion time: I do think that we posses free will whatever the definition might be.

There are enough know non-deterministic processes. I also think consideration of randomness vs determinism isn't sufficient to find an answer.

<comment><USER29> Can you supply a non-deterministic process, where the non-determinism is fundamental and not a way to quantify a lack of information about the system?

<comment><USER30> Anything that is best described by quantum mechanics.

<comment><USER29> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism)

What do you think of ideas like this then?

<comment><USER30> I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution somewhere. That is more complicated that the normal interpretation of QM but doesn't explain more.

<comment><USER6> > I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the > universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution > somewhere

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by 't Hooft [https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548](https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548)

<comment><USER30> That's really interesting, I like CAs a lot. However the author himself states in the introduction that Bell's inequality and related theorems very strongly suggest that his theory is not correct.

<comment><USER6> > However the author himself states in the introduction that Bell's inequality > and related theorems very strongly suggest that his theory is not correct.

It's widely believed that Bell's theorem and other no-go theorems preclude a local, hidden variable interpretation of QM. The author merely mentions that he can reconcile existing results with this local, hidden variable interpretation via "superdeterminism".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant I thought this experiment was explained just as well by decoherence? Under the many world interpretation, there's no instant communication, _or_ hidden variable, we just happen to learn in which world we are by performing the measurement.

The laws of physics are still deterministic as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER31> This just pushes back the point of non-determinism. Instead of the measurement, or wave function collapse, or decoherence or whatever you want to call it being not deterministic, the "world" you end up in is.

If even that point is to be considered deterministic then there has to be some previous state of _something_ to lead to it, and we're back to non-local hidden variables.

This is one of the many reasons I dislike the many-worlds theory, and it's seeming popularity of late. It does not actually solve non-determinism, it just shuffles the deck a little, while also tacking on an ever expanding number of alternate universes, all the while remaining as non-falsifiable as any other QM interpretation.

If I had to choose between two non-local hidden variable theories, I'd choose the one without the constant branching alternate worlds.

Non-local hidden variables are almost by definition unknowable to us, so I'm not sure what we gain by pretending all this meta-physical philosophizing is actual science. It did make for a good TNG episode though.

<comment> loup-vaillant Many Worlds is popular for a reason: it's one of the simplest interpretation that fits the facts. The scientist in you might dislike that it came about later than the Copenhagen interpretation without any experiment to distinguish them. The Bayesian in me just applies Occam's razor.

Just realize that a collapse interpretation is the same as a many worlds, with the _additional_ assumption that the blob of amplitude you don't live in is somehow flattened to zero. The "it's just maths" interpretation isn't much better: the maths tell us that we have two worlds worth of amplitudes, yet for some reason the one we don't observe isn't real. This is as ridiculous as believing that stuff you send outside the observable universe ceases to exist once it crosses the boundary.

As for how far it pushes non-determinism… I'd say quite far. Under the MWI, the universe is entirely deterministic. What is not is just our subjective experience. What was originally a Physics problem is now an *anthropic" problem, similar to what you would get if you were to copy & paste humans, or do mind uploading. The more interesting mystery in my opinion is more about why the Born statistics are the way they are, instead whatever else we could imagine them to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So many popular science articles have started to commit ontological fallacies like this. Free will obviously exists because we experience it. This question presumes a denial of experience and a claim that really the experience isn't real but instead this other thing that cannot ever be experienced is. What's even the motivation for that?

The motivation seems to be to paint an awe-inspiring picture of mystery through the facade of science for link clicks, with the defamation of science. Science is meant to make things clear not enigmatic.

The question debating if free will actually exists, is a denial of experience and a solicitation to some sort of ontology outside of experience that can never be known.

<comment><USER17> > Free will obviously exists because we experience it.

You seem to be confusing the subjective experience of consciousness with free will. They aren't equivalent. (Free will can be viewed as a conjecture about the relationship of conscious experience with the outside world, but is not synonymous with conscious experience.)

<comment><USER32> I'm not. If I meant the experience of consciousness I would have said so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The article argues that "randomness" (by which it means essential unpredictability) is experimentally backed. This is an awkward constraint for a universe designer: isn't a totally deterministic universe much easier and simpler?

Free will has no room to survive in a clockwork universe. But free will remains a viable position, despite the philosophical contortions, but supported by experimental evidence like what's discussed here. And that seems like an argument in itself, right? It ain't come this far...

<comment><USER34> > This is an awkward constraint for a universe designer: isn't a totally > deterministic universe much easier and simpler?

Huh? Maybe it's natural selection, all the way down, and all the way up. The results aren't at all "random", but they're also not at all designed.

<comment><USER29> I think he means it would be expensive to inject randomness all the time instead of just letting a rule-based system go from state to state deterministically.

<comment><USER34> OK, except why are you putting it in those terms?

It just is what it is. There's no reason to think that stuff evolves in the least-expensive way.

And there are rules. What we call laws of physics. It's just that there's lots of wiggle room. At least, if you're lucky enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What is interesting about this article for me is that, the question of free will has been one of the oldest subject of academic scholasticism. So how come now it is being discussed by people whose profession is about measuring and classifying natural phenomena in relation to the physical concept of force? I wonder what changed? Did physics become academic scholasticism or did free will is transformed into a physical force?

<comment><USER6> > So how come now it is being discussed by people whose profession is about > measuring and classifying natural phenomena in relation to the physical > concept of force? I wonder what changed?

Quantum mechanics changed how physicists see the universe's classical deterministic character (see Einstein's famous quote). Then they published The Free Will Theorem and the Strong Free Will Theorem, but this conception of "free will" has no relation to the one in philosophy. It was a very poor choice of terminology IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wow! Such a lot of work on top of a mistake which they already figured out, too bad that only in a scale of laboratory room. If EVERYTHING is determined taking quasars from far far away (in time and space) doesn't change anything in the experiment. Back then, the experiment in the laboratory room also was determined. Pop-"science".

</comment><comment><USER37> I believe that free will is possible. Our conceptions of existence are limited by our perspective; that of a causative (and, OK, possibly random) reality, but it's possible that our wills are interfaced with super-dimensional spirits (souls, if you like). The fact that we cannot conceive of an existence which is not causative does not mean that our spirits do not dwell in one. One way of approximating such an existence is to consider it as "timeless". This timeless spirit may then, in a sense, exercise influence on our wills throughout our entire lifespan, simultaneously (perhaps through a quantum interface). You could call this deterministic, but how is it deterministic in any meaningful sense if our choices are "determined" by a spirit which is, by definition, our essential self, free of circumstantial preconditions?

</comment><comment><USER20> It turns out if you make unjustified assumptions (information can't travel faster than light) you can make unjustified conclusions (no hidden variables).

</comment><comment><USER38> someone mentioned free will not existing because every decision made is the result of past decisions. Given a choice between A or B, I will only choose given who I am and therefore there was really no choice to begin with. When you're born you have no past to rely on but there sure seems to be a lot of randomness in a baby/child. Maybe randomness is free-will but it slowly erodes away with time.

<comment><USER39> > Maybe randomness is free-will but it slowly erodes away with time.

It's a bit tricky depending on your idea of what "free will" means, but essentially it can be argued that there's a difference non-trivial difference between free will and determinism.

If the development of the Universe is predetermined, then the Universe is deterministic (in some system of logic) and free will does not exist.

If the development of the Universe depends on the the outcome of truly random events, then the universe is non-deterministic, but this does not imply that free will exists.

Consider: Someone has to decide between two choices which for all intents and purposes are exactly the same when measured against each other. On the most fundamental level, the only way to break the deadlock is through a "random" selection. If this random selection is driven by the aforementioned random (possibly quantum) events, then is this really "free will"? After all, the person making the decision has no conscious control of the events influencing the decision process on that level. This implies that decision making ("will") is just a function acting on inputs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Free will is a lie the mind tells itself to cope with reality.

No matter where the choice to act rests, it's not with the individual willing it to be so.

In a western society, with ample choice and the ability to make those choices, one might feel like they have free will. Look elsewhere, and you'll see that the "choice" to act is very limited to the circumstances of your life.

</comment><comment><USER41> If free will did not exist, how would you ever be able to imagine such a thing?

An entity that is constrained by determinism, say a computer program, has no room to "step outside" its own frame and imagine things running an different way.

In essence, free will and consciousness the same thing.

<comment><USER42> We can imagine tons of things that don't exist. For instance I'm currently imagining a bouncy ball that instead of bouncing according to deterministic laws, bounces according to a mystic will-based system.

<comment><USER38> and i'm currently imagining getting work done rather than being on HN :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My free will told me not to read this thread, and yet here I am...

</comment><comment><USER43> I think Sam Harris put it like this: for free will, it doesn't even matter if reality is deterministic or random because the determinism or randomness are found at the quantum level, many levels "below" neurological free will.

Let's say we have Universe 1 (deterministic) and Universe 2 (random). You face a choice - raise your left hand or your right hand. In U1, if you went back in time several times, you would always pick the same hand because the configuration of matter in the universe would "require" that the next step, globally, is you raising that same hand. In U2, if you went back in time, there could be some variance - maybe you'd pick the other hand 50% of the time - but this variance would happen on a quantum level and only manifest neurologically/physically. I still see no possibility of the classical idea of free will there.

<comment><USER44> wasnt there a story linked here a couple weeks ago about neurons possibly having some sensitivity to quantum interactions? Wouldn't that mean that the quantum level is not actually below neurological free will?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I find this view satisfying: "free will" is the feeling that our decisions are the consequence of the train of our inner thoughts. In that sense, free will exists. The following question is whether that feeling corresponds to physical reality or is an illusion. Here I believe it's the latter and free will is in fact merely an interpretation of what happens around us. See the book Feee Will from Sam Harris for more.

</comment><comment><USER46> If you look at the polysemy of 'to determine', you will likely determine that the primary meaning is actually to 'recognize, find out'. In that sense, saying that somebody had no choice means they _don 't anymore_ have a choice. But looking towards the future, you never have a closed function; the outcome is open. The ambiguity of 'to determine' is still relevant, because by determining a fact, you (try to) determine an outcome. This polysemy exists the same in other languages, e.g. German "bestimmen".

If you are lucky, your future will remain undetermined. After all, there's only one certain closed function for the future, which is its ... End.

PS: there's a contraction when people want to make free willed choices and remain undetermined at the same time. And it gets turned on its head when people are determined not to make any decisions, because ultimately, they will be deprived of all choices.

PPS: In law and politics especially, determining a 'fact' often has the ridiculous outcome that ridiculous rules based on rough estimates determine a detrimental outcome, e.g. age-limits on movies or tax collection. Those are real underlying problems, not philosophy. And the very notion of free will comes into play with 'wanton'. That does not just play a role with e.g. premediated murder, but "Willkürverbot" against law and court is anchored in the German Grundgesetz, that every decision must be based on reason. "Willkür" roughly translates to ... wow, I guess, "good faith". Whereas 'voluntary' is "freiwillig" (free willing). "Wille" compares to "Wahl" (election, choice). The history of "Willkür" is complicated, but Pfeifer compares Sanskr. "juis-", for "Kür" and related words, which reminds too much of Lt. 'iius'.

> got. kiusan 'prüfen'. Hierzu stellen sich außergerm. Entsprechungen wie > aind. juṣátē, jṓṣati 'hat gern, findet Gefallen, genießt', awest. zaoš-, > apers. dauš- 'an etw. Gefallen finden', griech. gé͞uesthai (γεύεσθαι) > 'kosten, schmecken, zu spüren bekommen', lat. dēgūnere 'kosten', air. togu > 'wählen' und, mit dentalem Element wie in ↗kosten (s. d.), lat. gustāre > 'kosten, genießen', die auf eine gemeinsame Wurzel ie. _g̑eus-_ 'kosten, > genießen, schmecken' (im Germ. und Kelt. 'wählen' durch Übertragung des > Wahrnehmens und Prüfens auf andere Sinnesbereiche) führen.

"iius" also reminds of 'juice', as far as enjoyment goes, which with relations to blood (cp. Agr. ear - blood, juice; and the four humors [juices] theory, "Viersäfteleehre"). 'Joy' itself looks related. Talk about bad blood and gusto. Gives August a different perspective, too.

Whereas "free" has to be compared to "Frieden" (piece), with a sense secure, bounded (cp. fence? Friesen ... Brit vs Fritz, through 'bh'?). Still Lt. "volens" has to be compared to Ger. "wollens" (and vollends?). Ultimately I take a shortcut and equate well with will to derive good (cp Ger. "Güte" \- mercy, quality, "Gut" \- merch, lot [of a farm]); And 'faith' from "Treu und Glauben" and "guter Glaube" which expresses the notion of Willkür for old Kurpfalzen best, by my own esteemed estimate. This derivation is a bit of a freestyle ("Kür" as in sports). "Kür" could relate to 'sure' if a prehistoric _scur_ is assumed, which is, of course, obscure, as is 'obscure'.

So we see that the words _free will_ are not literal because a lot of punning was involved.

None of that has anything to do with stars, but election is superficially cognate with illuminate (elector - sun; lux - light; lego - collect, read; ligo - bind) and to star has something to do with being appointed.</comment>


Why Many CS Degrees Are Stagnating - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hackerrank.com/why-many-computer-science-programs-are-stagnating/

<comment><USER2> They compares twenty random faculty members of Carnegie Mellon University with twenty random faculty members of University of Houston. Assuming they didn't cherry pick the two schools, pick random sets of twenty faculty members until they got the numbers they wanted, or include faculty outside of CS (They don't specify.), it's still only two schools. And then they come to the following conclusion.

 _While this is by no means an exhaustive account, it's a good anecdotal indication of the elite advantage._

In the next sentence they assert the following.

 _The majority of computer science programs have a substantially large gap between university and industry demands, trends and technologies._

Then after giving some examples of organizations that attempt to guide the curriculum.

 _All of these findings beg the larger question: Without an effective feedback loop between industry and brick-and-mortar universities, how well are we preparing our CS undergrads for the industry world with our current syllabus?_

What they're really saying is "Without an effective feedback loop between industry and brick-and-mortar universities we can't prepare CS undergrads for the industry world with out current syllabus.", but they phrased it as a question so it wouldn't sound like a drastic claim requiring strong evidence. Rhetorical questions provide an easy way to say something without having to defend it.

I'm too tired to do anymore. If anyone cares, you can look at how they only mention two effected individuals throughout the entire article and how they use data from the University of Washington to make predictions about all schools.</comment>


Meet the New LastPass Logo - <AUTHOR> https://blog.lastpass.com/2016/02/meet-the-new-lastpass-logo.html/ <comment><AUTHOR> In my completely uneducated opinion, this logo has too much whitespace, and looks unbalanced with the line at the end. I don't know how much of that is an objective analysis though, and how much is just that I'm not looking forward to retraining myself to recognize the icon...</comment>


Ask HN: Is your company not using React.js due to PATENT file? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I taught that they've dropped that claim when they updated[0] their patent grant.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9356508](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9356508)

<comment><AUTHOR> but the patents file is still there which our patent lawyers object to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For reference: [https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS](https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS)</comment>


Programming for all, part 1: An introduction to writing for computers - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/programming-for-all-part-1-an-introduction-to-writing-for-computers/

<comment><USER2> I have to take issue with how the binary system is explained. Not because it is wrong, but because it is comes off as way too intimidating for what it should be.

Binary arithmetic is not useful for the beginner. But binary logic is _extremely_ useful...and more importantly, binary logic is something that non- programmers typically have a blind spot for.

Someone once asked me what digital concepts non-programmers should be familiar with...at the top of that list for me is the concept of everything being either 0 or 1.

For example, the answer to the question: _is 2 greater than 1?_ can be represented as a 1, for "true"

So how do computers solve complex problems? By breaking a complex problem into many, many, _many_ yes or no questions.

How do you tell if a pixel is reddish? Its R value is greater than a certain threshold (and of course, this comparison is a composition of multiple binary operations). How do you tell if in a given photo if a man's eyes are closed? Well, given a set of pixels where the eyes are located, calculate whether most of those pixels are reddish rather than white (or brown or whatever the person's skin is). And how do you locate the eyes in a jpeg in the first place? Well, that's _more_ binary decisions...which leads you to talking about functions and methods and encapsulation of complex code (another feature of programming that non-programmers should know).

Once a novice can see how everything, whether it's comparing two numbers, deciding a web-scraping strategy, or designing an AI, can be reduced to yes-no questions, then I feel that programming becomes much more interesting...after all, they need a way to process those countless yes-no questions in a reasonable amount of time.

<comment><USER3> I have to agree with you. It's how programming was taught to me when I was school. First they showed me the logic, then they showed how I could calculate and print a simple bill for a restaurant. At that point I was sold and I keep learning to this day :)

Teaching programming is a tough field. If you want to teach programming to regular people, you have to go the extra mile to hide the sleeping difficulty and the mathematics. They can learn that stuff after if they wish to.

You can also teach it "MIT Style" with 1 hour lectures and cascading blackboards. It's good too, the content is great, but people pay small fortunes to study at MIT so whatever the teaching method is, it will work because are investing their life into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> At the end of this introduction, he gives, as further reading for the beginner, Lambda the Ultimate.

<comment><USER4> Oohh look how smart he is! The following blog post is useful to see why all the back history the ars technica post goes into is probably more distracting that useful. <http://therealkatie.net/blog/2012/oct/24/career-day/></comment></comment>


Singapore gets a hackerspace - <AUTHOR> http://www.e27.sg/2009/10/14/what-do-seattle-silicon-valley-berlin-and-cambridge-both-cambridges-have-in-common

<comment><USER2> Good move, though the price of membership is a tad steep for a debt-ridden code monkey such as myself.</comment>


Incredible CSS Image Slider no JS - <AUTHOR> http://codepen.io/html5web/pen/vkDyu

<comment><USER2> Not only do I like this approach but codepen.io is gathering lots of talent. Great source of inspiration, thanks CC.</comment>


Chromium Issue150835 Support programmatical copying of images to clipboard fixed - <AUTHOR> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=150835#c118 <comment><AUTHOR> Finally!

Quick demo: [https://jsfiddle.net/murkle/asbcgnqf/1/](https://jsfiddle.net/murkle/asbcgnqf/1/)</comment>


Everything is a Choice - <AUTHOR> http://bennesvig.com/everything-is-a-choice/

<comment><USER2> This isn't meant as a comment on you personally as I've never read your blog until this entry but IME a lot of people who blog every day would be served better by blogging every day (for the practice and journal-like ability to reflect) but only marking some subset of their blogs published publicly... preferably after at least half a day of cool down after writing it (unless they are blogging about some very hot news).

I can only read 2 or 3 blog posts from someone who is clearly just blogging for the sake of blogging without really having much to say before I start to tune them out.

I won't mention any names but there are a few that appear on HN regularly that when I find myself clicking through the link because the title sounds interesting I end up closing the window automatically without reading it after seeing it is from the guy who from my previous experience just blogs obvious stream of conscious stuff without any type of useful insight.</comment>


At Dawn We Sleep - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/opinion/will-congress-act-to-protect-against-a-catastrophic-cyberattack.html <comment><USER2>
        Premise A: "Something must be done."
        Premise B: "This is something."
        </comment><comment>-----
        Conclusion: "This must be done."

I call bullshit.

I do believe that key pieces of global computer infrastructure are at risk of attack. But the threat will not be eliminated by scaremongering, or by handing POTUS the ability to 'shut down the internet' in the case of an emergency (a situation which would arguably lead to more catastrophic failures than any 'cyber attack').

The obvious thing to do when facing a direct military threat is to step up defense forces (missiles, infantry, warships, whatever) in the area you're expecting to be attacked in. But no such obvious solution exists in the case of 'cyberwarfare'. You can't just 'build a digital fortress' with a pile of bricks. I've yet to hear a sound explanation of how legislation will protect computer infrastructure.

Despite our protestations, the governments of the US, UK, Germany and whoever else probably _will_ pass cyberspace protection laws, that only deprive us of freedoms we've grown accustomed to, do little to secure anything, and drive up barriers to entry in more industries.

<comment><USER3> It is certainly interesting times in that if country A sends even a remote controlled plane into country B, then country B can deem that as aggression and proceed. In the digital age attacks akin to that happen all the time yet we are only told they happen and that we need to react.

There is nothing evident that the consumer public at large can relate to as there is no physical object or clear damage.

Then there is the aspect that a attack from country B upon country A done on the internet is nothing to do with country B in any intended form and is the product of a few people sat at home who have no official right to be doing the attack. The internet allows criminals to expand beyond there physical comuter reach and extend globaly. How do you seperate a milatary attack from a lone gunman or criminal collective? With great difficaulty alas and with that, everything gets labels at the country level and deemed as a official attack.

In a Worls that even at war has standards and a code that is followed, then it is about time perhaps that such a convention/standard was globaly agreed upon to encompass the digital age. Certianly agree that hospitals IT systems are a no go area, I know many a evil black hat hacker adheed to this moral code already, some things are just not cricket. But as a global official agreement, there is nothing.

This sadly lends itself to a World that can be manipluated and in that laws that proctect movies and music far outway the ones to protect Hospitals and patient data and in that the level of money to enforce this is very much biased in one direction sadly. It is the new think of the children meme used as an excuse to enforce control and with that we have the think of the internet attacks has now become the norm. Certainly think about and process them, but in a fair way and not by putting up a large stop sign and thinking that is how you control those doing the bad things when it only impacts those who are upstanding more than not. Can even cause somebody upstanding to become disalusioned and with that add to the issue that is never realy addressed directly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The threat of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" is completely unfounded and ridiculous, but frankly that's what I'd expect from Liberman. Hackers are extremely good at taking down specific sites that have specific issues with their security, not disabling entire swaths of networked systems. When some sect of Anonymous decided to attack Israeli computers during Pillar of Defense for instance, they claimed victory because they took down nearly 500 Israeli systems...which were just random Israeli websites with major security flaws, mainly grocery stores, locksmiths, and one government website dealing with economic investment. Such an operation is not difficult, yet accomplishes nothing. Actually attacking large numbers of computers used in the US, especially those used for defensive capabilities, is essentially impossible, because each one requires a different attack, assuming there isn't some massive as hell security hole sitting in the middle of ubiquitous server software, which I'd say is unlikely. Sure you can take down the Texas Water Utility, but you couldn't take down the utilities of every water system in the United States simultaneously without spending a significant amount of time on it and hope nothing changes once you crack one and move on to the next. Nobody, not even China, has the personnel to hit all of our major systems at once.

Hell, Not even taking down the DNS network would do all that much, as most computers that form the backbone of our medical and financial systems use IP addresses, instead of URL's, as their primary method of connecting to other servers. The military doesn't even use the main IP system, they have their own.

As most people who actually work within this world know, the primary way of gaining access to systems are social engineering, system defaults, and insecure handling of access information. The world has gotten smart enough now where practically all of our important infrastructure are very well guarded against these attacks. That isn't to say they don't happen, but it's rare, too rare for the possibilities of a full-scale "cyber-attack."

</comment><comment><USER5> _These attacks did not have to be initiated from within the United States or even a few miles offshore. Cybersecurity experts believe Iran is the likely culprit in both attacks, and we fear this is just the beginning._

 _The headlines before the attack on Pearl Harbor turned out to be delusional. No one can reasonably entertain such a delusion about our adversaries' capacity to attack us in cyberspace today._

 _Time has almost run out in this session of Congress, and President Obama will soon issue an executive order that will establish cybersecurity standards for critical infrastructure according to the statements of his top cabinet officials._

For the most part, I was along for the ride on this op ed piece. However, when the authors started suggesting Iran might in some way be behind a Pearl Harbor event, I lost interest. When they suggested new legislation that might hinder my ability to use computers without actually improving security for the US, they lost me completely.

</comment><comment><USER6> _The harsh reality is that such an attack does not require extensive computer skills. Earlier this year, The Washington Post reported on an overseas hacker who gained control of a small Texas water utility using Internet tools available to anyone._

I really dislike statements like this. The latter does certainly not imply the former. There surely wasn't a "Texas Water Utility Taker-downer" published on the Internet. A would-be attacker still needs to understand how to exploit security vulnerabilities. While resources for learning such skills can be found online, it's not as plug-and-play as the Times is portraying it.

<comment><USER7> They are almost certainly referring to the use of <http://www.shodanhq.com/> to look for SCADA banners.

Try it sometime if you want to gaze upon the gossamer veil twixt normal western life and 28 days later style chaos.

<comment><USER8> 28 days later style chaos: this is what he'll experience when the US gov drops the hammer on him for scanning "strategic" installations right ?

<comment><USER7> You dont need to scan them, shodan has done it for you. That's the point.

Eg <http://www.shodanhq.com/?q=Rockwell>

But yes, as ever, don't do stupid stuff if youre not satisfied with your own safety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Who is going to declare war with the strongest military power and most warlike nation on the planet? I believe in having minimum standards for cyber security in order to provide reasonable security for data but this seems incredibly alarmist. It seems like it should have the headline: "War on Terror II: This time it's going cyber!"

<comment><USER10> Declare war? Which century do you live in? The US has not declared war in over 70 _years_.

In fact one of the biggest issues with a cyber attack is that we may never know where it came from.

<comment><USER11> You're joking right?

If you believe what you're saying, I am reminded of 1984.

<comment><USER10> June 5, 42. USA declares war on Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

It has not declared war since.

How do you detect that any given country is behind an attack launched by a botnet of American computers?

Heck we still don't know that it was the US who were behind Stuxnet.

<comment><USER11> You're talking about _formal_ declarations of war.

Afghanistan? Iraq? _Vietnam_?

 _Going to war_ might not be semantically the same as _declaring_ war, but that doesn't change a thing, within the context at hand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's absolutely true that SCADA systems are horrifically insecure and there is very little incentive for a private company to upgrade security. It costs a lot and doesn't give ROI (yet).

Something _must_ be done, sooner would be better than later.

I would rough out a plan like so:

* CIP companies _must_ upgrade their security, which _will_ be audited by Federal pentesters.

* Their security upgrade _will_ be funded partially through grants.

* Failure to implement security _will_ incur fines sufficient to ruin the company, _without_ exemption.

* Audit findings will incur fines scaled according to the severity of the audit finding.

Note that CIP companies are in a different class than other companies. These companies ensure that _life goes on_. Water treatment plants, electrical utilities, other similar installations. These companies by their nature ought to be subject to a more careful eye by the public, because the public depends on them.

</comment><comment><USER13> _"In invoking Pearl Harbor, we're not trying to be alarmist — we're borrowing an analogy the defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, himself used in an Oct. 11 speech about what a catastrophic cyberattack might look like."_

We're not trying to be alarmist; we're parroting someone trying to be alarmist.

Right. Okay.

</comment><comment><USER14> Beat those drums. We need people ready for war.

<comment><USER15> Precisely. This reminds me of, albeit less dramatic, fear mongering akin to Colin Powell announcing to the United Nations that the USA has proof that Iraq has WMDs. Of course when we showed up in Iraq, Colin Powell ended up looking like a fool because his facts were so incorrect (few remembered Colin's address at the time though).

Scaring people to manipulate them...I see it happening, I just rarely understand to what end.

<comment><USER16> With the two current wars winding down America's Heros(tm) need new villains to fight. War is good for business, remember?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I sort of tuned out after about two paragraphs once my "scary-boogie-man- justifications" meter redlined, but I could imagine something along the lines of PCI compliance being a reasonable first step. The government or whoever would establish a set of baseline security standards, and then private and public agencies that appear to be risk targets are required to meet those standards. If (IF!) it were kept relatively straightforward - this could provide a lot of value with a minimum of additional government.

I'm not familiar with HIPPA privacy regulations - those also might be a reasonable place to start.

</comment><comment><USER18>
        Earlier this year, The Washington Post reported on an
        overseas hacker who gained control of a small Texas
        water utility using Internet tools available to anyone.

Why is any critical piece of infrastructure connected to the internet at all? Disconnect and use sneaker-net instead.

<comment><USER19> Because utilities are connected across vast geographical areas. Usually, you can get by with local control in isolated stations, but some applications (such as synchrophasors on the power grid) need wide area networks for control. And it is much cheaper to ride the internet in some parts than it is to build your own isolated wide area network infrastructure (which still wouldn't be immune to physical access).

The idea is to encrypt everything, use a firewall, and have user account control. There are standards for how to do this safely (NERC-CIP). And isolate every network from the net unless it's absolutely necessary.

Right now we're in a state of flux. The industry will mature as younger engineers with computer backgrounds and an understanding of IT (like me) take over.

<comment><USER18> If someone gained access to just the synchrophasors, could they shutdown the whole plant down? Or is this just the point of "leakage" into other parts of the system? Can the phase synchronization still not be done by hand? I'm just trying to understand the example more.

These are large scale engineer projects, and it's been said before that trad. engineers are more rigorous in their methods and approach to solutions, as compared to software engineers. And yet, they are taking shortcuts (the internet) which do not live up to the engineering standards of the rest of the system.

For me, the only real solution is to use an isolated network. Yes, there will always be the risk of physical access, but that exists with every solution. By removing critical hardware/software from the internet, you reduce your number of attacks dramatically.

<comment><USER19> Synchrophasors are timestamped data from individual measuring devices on the power grid, such as relays. If you can control those devices on a live system you absolutely can do a lot of damage. However, there are often several layers between those devices and the phasor data concentrator. And more security between the PDC and the public internet.

Synchrophasors' value is in comparing voltages across entire synchronous regions[1] to maintain stability and prevent events like the 2003 Northeast blackout. As such, they're essentially national in scale. How do you get information across the country (in roughly real time) without the internet? As you can imagine, replicating huge chunks of the internet is cost prohibitive to even the largest utilities.

Believe me, networking is taken extremely seriously in my industry (electric power), and no device is connected to the internet unless it absolutely has to be. There are plenty of valid concerns; however, progress must still be made. I'm interested to see how this all plays out, and to play my own small part in the development of networked utility infrastructure.

So far, the power grid has been safe from the types of nuisance attacks the water utility in the article saw. I really don't know why water pumps and sanitation systems need to be online. I have a hunch we electrical engineers have a leg up on civil engineers when it comes to computer security. ;)

[1]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_area_synchronous_grid>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> One would have hoped that with an alarmist title like "At Dawn We Sleep" the topic would be about something very frightening, like the collapse of the oceanic ecosystems, the melting polar ices or the rapidly increasing global temperature. We already know that freak weather incidents like Katrina and Sandy will become much more common in the future and will take many more lives than any "cyber terrorism" ever will. After the war on Communism, drugs and terrorism why can't America declare war on climate change?

</comment><comment><USER21> "Oh noes, somebody hacked our water pump!". A bunch of fear mongering drivel. It doesn't feel like cyber terrorism was ever ignored or neglected.

</comment><comment><USER22> You know what other day was preceded by newspapers not predicting a Japanese surprise attack on America? ALL OF THEM.

Nothing in this article gives reason to change my expectation of upcoming cyberattack.

</comment><comment><USER22> Dare I ask what the legislation he wants actually does? Is it another "kill freedom in the name of security without actually securing anything" act?

</comment><comment><USER23> and when we wake up we go nuclear on innocents

step 1 fear mongering like this step 2 an attack that makes good headlines step 3 legislation requiring registration of computers (pick a means)

</comment><comment><USER24> It's usually safe to assume that when Droopy opens his mouth, what follows is complete malarkey.</comment>


How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography Of Anonymous Electronic Cash (1996) - <AUTHOR> http://cryptome.org/jya/nsamint.htm

<comment><USER2> In 1995(?) I went to a talk by Chaum, and was convinced that e-cash was the way of the future. It was awesome.

Then, in 1996(ish) I went to a talk by Simson Garfinkel, and asked him about e-cash. This dashed my hopes for e-cash. He specifically raised an important objection to all the e-cash schemes of the time: the "risk" of the system was essentially essentially infinite. An e-cash mint could, if subverted by hook or crook, print an infinite amount of e-cash, thus disrupting the entire system. (Imagine terrorists with guns going into an e-cash mint and saying "Print us one quadrillion dollars of money". In the e-cash systems of the time, a few minutes later, they would say "here ya gone, one quadrillion dollars of untraceable unrevokable money".)

I think the genius of the bitcoin system is that there is no central mint, and the "proof-of-work" system eliminates the possibility of someone minting an infinite amount of cash.

P.S. It's Saturday night and I'm not entirely sober. If you want to call me an idiot based on the above, well, that seems fair. On the other hand, if you want to argue with either Chaum or Garfinkel, please research and read what they actually wrote rather than rely on my drunken recollection.

</comment><comment><USER3> But I don't think the blinding scheme presented in section 3.2 can be trusted if the bank logs all coins it signs and all coins it verifies.

When signing a coin to make a withdrawal, the bank is given

      (r^v · M (mod N)) - N and v is publicly known, M and r are only known to Alice.

The bank computes r · M^s (mod N) (using s, which only the bank knows).

Later, Bob supplies the bank with M', a message, and (r · M^s (mod N)) / r, and the bank is not supposed to be able to link M' back to M.

But the bank can enumerate all (r_i^v · M_i (mod N)) that it signed, and divide by M'; if M=M', the result is of the form r_i^v (mod N). The bank knows the prime factorisation N = pq, so they can test r_i^v (mod p) and r_i^v (mod q); for a prime modulus, computing a power residue is efficient, and for a large enough p and q (as you want in cryptography) and a moderately high v, this gives a high level of confidence that M=M'.

<comment><USER4> Indeed; this is why provable security is so important:

[http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~luby/PAPERS/blind.ps](http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~luby/PAPERS/blind.ps)

[http://eprint.iacr.org/2011/316.pdf](http://eprint.iacr.org/2011/316.pdf)

[http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jkatz/papers/blind_sigs- proc.pdf](http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jkatz/papers/blind_sigs-proc.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> tl:dr NSA invented Bitcoin?

<comment><USER6> Their proposal requires a central bank. They discuss how to do "offline" transactions without contacting this central authority, but double-spending would only be detected when money is "deposited" back into the central bank.

<comment><USER4> It is worth pointing out that the double spending is not merely detected in these systems; the bank is able to compute a proof, that anyone can verify, of a particular party's guilt. This allows the bank to create a blacklist, or to use a legal system, etc.</comment></comment></comment>