Letters to the Editor

More "free will" to consider

To the Editor:

I am just responding on the article regarding atomic fatalism, ["Atomic fatalism: A compelling yet disturbing look at human 'free will,'" by David Merrick, Feb. 28, 2002] since I feel there are a few things that weren't considered:

Firstly, "atomic fatalism" assumes all systems are inherently classical or deterministic. Basically, one could calculate the future of any particle knowing its initial conditions. But when one starts talking about atoms, classical theory just breaks down, and we need quantum mechanics, which can be summarized (more or less) in one word: "probability." Hence, Nature will never allow us to know the exact behavior of atomic or subatomic particles.

Secondly, as one professor told me: Even if one does know the behavior of quarks, electrons or even atoms, it doesn't mean one is able to deduce all the laws of chemistry or biology. In fact, it is almost ridiculous to think of it that way. Therefore, it seems all sciences are somewhat fundamental in the range in which they explore.

Finally, physics, chemistry and biology are all ways in which we interpret nature. Who is to say they are absolutely right? Who is to say that another civilization may not have a better way of describing the universe? If this holds true, then science itself may just be an approximation to the way things really are, which reflects the vast complexity of nature itself.

So, with all of these uncertainties mounting one after the other, it appears no more likely to determine if you are going to be hit by a car on June 5, 2034, than it is to wonder how Baltimore could really be "The Greatest City in America."

Sincerely,

Brian Smigielski

Young deserves praise for his prudence

To the Editor:

I am writing to express my dismay and concern regarding your recent editorial, "Is this gentlemanly behavior?" [Feb. 28, 2002]

I was disappointed to see the editors' treatment of Greek Advisor Ira Young. Young was vilified for refusing to comment on this unfortunate incident or to aid the News-Letter in their efforts to obtain additional information.

I was distressed at the characterization of Young's rebuff as "a blatant act of concealment." Was it? Was there a conspiracy against the News-Letter? Perhaps Young didn't have the whole story, and thought it wise not to comment yet. Or perhaps Young felt that, given his limited experience at Hopkins, Dean Sheppard would be better qualified to respond at that juncture. The editors chastised Young and applauded Sheppard. Could Young have simply deferred to Sheppard? Her comments in another article seemed to stand for two propositions: (1) That fraternities had acted this way before, and (2) that the IFC and University conduct boards would investigate.

Young, being new, could not comment on the first. As to the second, Young surely knew Sheppard would

inform the News-Letter of the Boards' actions.

Administrative commentary on University incidents is a privilege, not a right. There is nothing to suggest that Young won't be entirely forthcoming when information on the incident is clearer. His prudence should be applauded, not attacked.

Sincerely,

Toby J. Stern