Another discussion on the existence of free will. To most people the question seems silly, of course humans have free will. Then ask these people to define free will. Not so easy. Certainly not for people who have committed themselves to the belief that every effect has a prior cause. And I mean every effect, all the the way down to every atomic interaction of everything in existence, including, I’m afraid, the human brain. On this view, even every one of our brain states had a prior cause in biochemistry, each one in turn eventually reducible to physics. Hence, from the second you were born, right up to the present, your behaviors have been determined. (Note determined does not necessarily mean knowable). There’s no getting around this, unless you care to challenge the laws of physics. I don’t, which is why I side with Nietzsche, who (supposedly) said of free will: “It is the ability to pull oneself from the swamp by their own hair.”

Having said that, I have always argued, and continue to believe that my (un-coerced) actions certainly seem to me to have been freely chosen by me. If I do something wrong I expect people to seek justice for that wrong based on the belief that I could have done otherwise. Because I submit that, with relatively few exceptions, every human being holds the belief that all human action is indeterminate before it occurs. Meaning, of course, every action could have been different. It’s always seemed that way to me, too.

And yet, in reason and logic, the incompatibilist in me sees the contradiction. In light of what is known of the laws of physics and the immutability of cause and effect, I see no way around this contradiction, and for what it’s worth I’m not alone^*.

* See, for instance, the comments of “SilverAce” at the the first link.

I pedaled to Palmer yesterday to meet up with Happy Wife who’d driven there earlier to go to our state fair. A couple miles shy of 50. A glorious August day.

Ah, the Matanuska River, placid and peace-loving, no?

NO!

The river takes what the river wants.

Let that be a lesson to brides everywhere eager to trash their dress.

The making of a Fox Fox.

Not many places ten minutes from home where you can walk with your dog through a 1400 acre park, nearly alone (Lucy ‘n I passed a few off-road bikers), and take one step off the trail to pick a palmful of wild ‘n sweet red raspberries. I ask you…

Derek Lowe has a post up about the reversal of a prior court’s decision that had struck down Myriad Genetic’s patent claim to BRCA testing. “BRCA” is a gene, mutations of which are associated with breast cancer. The gene name stands for “BReast CAncer”, and there are two different BRCA genes, BRCA1 & BRCA2. Myriad had sought to patent these genes, in effect positioning themselves to be the only company that could perform the test to see if a patient carried a mutation in one or both of the genes.

In Myriad’s favor, an appeals court reversed the prior decision, reasoning that a single molecule, in this case a very small piece of naturally occurring DNA, which is isolated and chemically modified in order to perform a test with it, is eligible for patent. If you read closely the portions of the decision Derek posted, you’ll see what the appeals court said this decision was about, and specifically what it wasn’t about. The appeals judge ruled the case was not about “patentability”, but rather “patent eligibility”. I confess the two are synonymous to me, but I’m not a lawyer.

The court’s reasoning turns on the fact that while the BRCA1 (or 2) gene does exist naturally, it exists as one (very) small piece of a vastly larger polymer, i.e. nuclear DNA. That is, the individual BRCA genes (1 & 2) do not exist naturally as a separate and isolated molecules in the cell, which, if they did, would make them ineligible for patent protection.

Pretty slippery reasoning if you ask me. But as one commenter to the post said, new DNA sequencing technologies, which are getting better and cheaper all the time, will likely render the implications of this decision moot.

Look Dowd, there was more wisdom left on Ayn Rand’s editing floor than you’ll muster in a lifetime of “columns.” Yes, we know you hold a special hatred for the Russian Radical and her ethics of individualism, but using Ryan to showcase that contempt one would have thought is beneath even the belly of viper like yourself. Evidently not.

I found the psychological analysis offered by one commenter to your column quite amusing, if not also possibly accurate:

So the Auburn Cobra has a special vial of venom for Paul Ryan — and he is both cruel and cute? How visceral and revealing. ATTENTION UPPER WEST SIDE ECHO CHAMBER: MoDo is projecting her bitterness as a woman — that the men in her life didn’t want — again. He must remind her too much of the Catholic boys at her college (Catholic U) that either weren’t interested in or broke up with her. Not to mention all the other men in her life that decided life is too short to spend the rest of it with her. Go ahead, weaponize your intellect and take it out on Paul Ryan. All your friends think you’re brilliant, too. It’s what you do for a living anyway: menopausal scorn masquerading as highbrow commentary.     Tom Ryan, CA

Oh no! Oogabooga. He’s read Ayn Rand. And Hayek. And Friedman. Get the pitch forks and torches!

Next thing you know he’ll be pushing ideas like Freedom & Personal Liberty. Ewww, that is so yesterday.

Then again, he is nominally a Republican. Supposedly exhibiting little overlap with cranky Ron Paulism.

Too bad if you ask me.

…

Presently watching — actually not watching — Antiques Roadshow with the Happy Wife. She can watch this show for hours. I don’t know. Oh, sure, occasionally I’ll look up and find myself as surprised as the object owner, who’s just been told that the piece of pottery she snatched from the dumpster years ago is now worth, at auction, $25K. Mostly, though, I find the hour-long show a tad tedious. But you know the proverb: Happy Wife, Happy Life.

Summer has finally arrived. A little late this year but no less welcome. Mid 70’s, sunny, and windless. Sunday I cycled with a few guys to Independence Mine near Hatcher Pass. Reminded me of how few big climbs my quads have done this year. Like none, until yesterday. After a brisk pace line over the first ten miles the climbing commenced. This involved a couple thousand feet (or more) of up, over about ten miles (or less), including grades >12%. Ouch. Near the top we stopped in at the A-frame for lunch. Everyone ordered soup, so so did I. The bowl of Four Cheese (w/bread) was decent. After that we enjoyed a 40+ mph descent, followed by a spirited pace line back to Palmer, where we started the ride. ~50 miles round trip. Nice.

Back at home, Happy Wife suggested Ginger for date night. I had the Mee Krob and an icy gin martini. Okay, two.

Seen in the Cleveland airport. Near gate A3, should you disbelieve that such a spectacle is really on public display, and feel the need to go there and see for yourself.

Cleveland heads are rejoicing that ol’ Gino didn’t channel his “Best in Class” giftedness into hairdooery!

Home Saturday in the wee hour, due to a two hour delay leaving Cleveland, thus a missed connection in Chicago, hence three hours at Bubbles wine & piano bar (presently) waiting a 7:30 flight to Seattle (upgraded to 1st!), a layover, and then the final push to the Last Frontier into the waiting arms of the Happy Wife at the gate. Unless she forgets to set the alarm. In which case the arms of the cabbie.

Traveling this week. Not looking forward to 1) red-eye out of Anchorage, 2) connecting in O’Hare, or 3)  the TSA gauntlet. I’ll be in Cleveland and one day in Columbus, on company business. Our latest grant is complete — Whew! The relief is a bit like having been trapped beneath a fallen tree and suddenly freed. We (contributors) had our doubts we’d get this one out the door, but we gritted our teeth and prevailed.

Play fair out there.

An op-ed at the New York Times questioned the necessity of Algebra. At one point the writer wonders:

What of the claim that mathematics sharpens our minds and makes us more intellectually adept as individuals and a citizen body? It’s true that mathematics requires mental exertion. But there’s no evidence that being able to prove (x² + y²)² = (x² – y²)² + (2xy)² leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis.

And I thought, Maybe, but maybe the reverse is true — are people with more credible political opinions and social analysis — such as myself! — more likely able to prove the two sides are equivalent?

Forget about the second term on the right hand side of equation #1 for a second. When you carry out the binomial expansion of the sum of the squares (left), and difference of the squares (right), only the middle term is different. Do this and prove it to yourself.

The middle terms of the left and right expansion appear in #2. Clearly the term on the left is greater than the one on the right by 4 units. In other words, to make the two binomial expansions equivalent, we need to add 4 units of (x² • y²) to the right side.

Now back to that second term. Carry out the square and you see it equals 4 times (x² • y²) (#3).

Which is exactly what we just showed we need to add to the right side to make it equal the left (#4).

Done. Q.E.D.