Its just that every molecule, energy level etc conforms to the laws of physics and thus there is no room for anything else.
That is all well and good, but what if our laws of physics are wrong, or incomplete?
Our knowledge on the subject is limited. We dont have all of the answers and therefore to say there is no room for anything else is innacurate.
On computers and humans - It seems like you are trying to disprove a concept that has not yet been proven by arguing the virtues of a concept that has not yet been proven? (IE determinism vs free will) Or am I missing something? I look at it simply as a human brain thinks and adapts the way it processes information, whereas a CPU simply processes information based on defined parameters that it cannot change without input from a human source.
I perhaps lack the knowledge to explain it any more eloquently than that, but I just feel there is a subtle difference. I think the largest element is the state of self-awareness, which is something a computer/machine is never likely to have, not unless it is one that can learn in the same way as a human brain and attribute the same importance to its own self preservation. If it does, the memory it would need to draw on to be equivalent of an average adult person would be phenomenal.
I also feel that problem solving is another element. A computer processes data it is given, and puts out a result. It cannot operate outside of the boundaries of its decision making program. Given that input data is A, output data will always be B - based on the coding. Wheras a human brain can be given information to process but actually output data that is not rational, or even related to it based on memory and
feelings.
For example, to an angry or upset person, someone saying something insensitive can cause the brain to react in a certain way, possibly with verbal retorts or even violence. The exact same information, if the person was calm and in their usual state, would result in perhaps a witty retort or the choice to ignore the comments. So for example, for input data A, the output could be B, C or D or a mixture of all three depending one someones mood or how tired they are. Those elevated states in decision making are something a computer does not have. Likewise if a person is presented with XYZ information the brain may draw on memories, or actually create an
idea when responding to the data. This is most noticable in problem solving.
Thinking 'outside the box' is just not something a machine can do. It is linear and defined, wheras if a human decides to, they can create their
own input data (ideas/experiments) wheas a computer has to rely on pre-programmed parameters. For example - a modern robot can walk up and down stairs, negotiate around floor mounted obstacles, maybe even climb over one in order to get from A to B. This is all down to clever programming by a human, and plenty and/or/if entries in the coding. But will it assess where point B is and then go and find a rope and climb a tree in order to better see the lay of the land and choose the best route accordingly? (it should be noted also that the best route may not be the quickest, or most direct. It may be the
safest - a concept a robot is not going to be able to compute). So cognitive functions of a human brain, self awareness and self preservation make for significant differences in data processing, and humanity is something a robot is not likely to ever reproduce - not for a long long long long time. Possible though? Maybe - I certainly would love to meet one.
I am a believer that ulitmately knowledge and the
ability to wield it will give us answers, and will eventually provide technology akin to that we see in movies - IE human-like robots. Eventually. If, that is, there is not an imposed ceiling to our knowledge and resources placed by a third party because our existence is merely for their convenience and we are not
supposed to know the answers.
Most of the science around physics and determinism is based on what we
think is true, using theories and models. How many times as an adult have you been wrong when you thought you were right? How many times have you processed something only to realise a fundamental flaw in your calculations? Extrapolate that over an entire species, and the 'wrong' we may be chasing could be monumental. But again I think with all of the knowledge needed we could reasonably predict everything, but the scale of the data and knowledge needed to predict the movement, behaviour and reaction of everything in the universe is mind boggling. The very definition of such knowledge and power is encapsulated in the notion of God, or at least something God-like. For surely if we had such power, we could do anything? Perhaps God is simply us 10 billion years from now. Perhaps the notion of God has been instilled in us to aspire to - a kind of end result if we conquer knowledge. After all, is knowledge perpetually created, or does it simply exist in its entirity, waiting to be discovered?
Back to the OP - I dont think something that can adversely affect the infrastructure of any city in a negative way should be allowed - not without every other alternative being exhausted and even then probably not. Whilst I agree working people should have rights and channels in which to dispute things, bringing a city to its knees is not the answer, nor should it be permissable.
Regarding 'driverless' trains I think it is entirely plausible, but part of me is concerned. Mainly due to the fact that it is a system that will probably cost a huge amount of money to implement (the cynic in me is saying there are plenty of politicians who will have their finger in that pie), and what if it goes wrong? Computers crash, PCB's burn out etc etc. But I guess as long as enough safety measures are in place to protect people, then it may just be a step in the evolution of our transport system. That said, I think the ability to manually operate/override these trains must still remain.
