Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA27931 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 May 2000 19:52:19 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa? Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:34:52 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <391AB0E6.77967B03@mediaone.net> Message-Id: <00051119501509.00619@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Chuck Palson wrote:
>Robin Faichney wrote:
>
>It seems plausible to me that certain events might be so
>rare -- or even unique during a very long time period, that the possibility of
>lining up two or three of these at exactly the right time would be extremely
>unlikely and therefore improbable. If you get either a large complex system or
>even a few smaller interacting complex systems, it seems to me that you could get
>some chance events like that.
You don't need *any* complex systems to get rare and even unique events. In
fact, if they're analysed sufficiently closely, including context, because that
determines effects, *every* event is unique. As soon as you start talking
about repeating events, you are selecting them as similar in some ways even
though they're dissimilar in others, and therefore bringing in subjective
criteria. There's nothing wrong with that -- in fact, it is absolutely
unavoidable -- as long as you recognise that's what you're doing. But to talk
of objective probability is to ignore such factors, and therefore is
necessarily invalid. In nature, there are no "chance events". That phrase has
meaning only where there is the possibility of something having been intended,
ie in human affairs. Outside of that context, its only use is to signal a
failure of understanding.
>Take the fact that the earth is in a line in the solar system which is virtually
>unique in that it does not get many large meteors as do other planets in the
>system (Venus, or is it Jupiter, sucks them in with their gravity field before
>they get here) is an accident allowed the billions of years necessary for the
>development of complex life. Every other planet with roughly our conditions
>couldn't support complex life because meteor showers would stop the development
>too early.
>
>Now it seems to me that you could say that THEORETICALLY we should someday be able
>to understand why the earth is in that particular position if we find out enough
>about the history of the universe. But couldn't one say that for all practical
>purposes, we can treat it as an improbable event?
Name one purpose outside of human affairs, for which it would be practical to
do that.
>Or what of the fact that a special echnoniche is needed to start a species, and it
>gets started, but it gets wiped out by another developing predator species before
>it gets a chance to grow in population size. How many chances can a species get to
>develop? How many threats is it under in the area it got a chance to start?
>Intuitively I would say that we could use the word improbable. What do you think?
Sure, it's intuitive. But in strictly objective terms, it's wrong. Why do you
want to say human evolution is improbable? The only reason I can imagine is to
give special value to it -- exporting the concept of rarity value from the field
of economics, in which it is perfectly valid, into natural science, in which it
is perfectly invalid. What happens, happens, and what doesn't, doesn't. Get
over it! :-)
-- Robin Faichney===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 19:52:38 BST