Re: Determinism

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 05:01:57 BST

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: The Demise of a Meme"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA22582 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:59:35 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:01:57 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Message-ID: <3AC904E5.10167.246146@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <3AC8928E.9E5D799B@bioinf.man.ac.uk>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 2 Apr 2001, at 15:54, Chris Taylor wrote:

    > I think I am forced to be a determinist (ho ho)...
    >
    > How much of an effect does the quantum have on the everyday? I ask
    > because if I ignore quantum stuff, I can see no other input to a
    > system than well-behaved molecules etc. obeying well-understood laws;
    > so given perfect knowledge of the system, you can determine its future
    > states n'est ce pas?
    >
    > Therefore, if I had perfect knowledge of the full (and I *mean* full)
    > state of a mind, and its environment, I could perfectly predict
    > behaviour (and indeed must therefore have no choice myself, only the
    > illusion of choice due to the multiplicity of finely divided options).
    >
    > After all, complexity theory is about the best approximation to a
    > system you cannot gain perfect knowledge of, but if I knew
    > *everything* (I mean too much to ever be able to get) about a complex
    > system I could predict it, couldn't I?
    >
    To completely model a system, first, your map would have to be
    coextensive with the territory, thus doubling it; then you'd need a
    map to represent the Heideggerian change that mapping, which
    requires perception of, therefore interaction with, would make to the
    system, then another map of this further altering recursion, and so
    on ad nauseum ad infinitum. Due to this infinite progress, it is, IN
    PRINCIPLE, impossible to completely represent a concrete
    empirical system, such as a mind or an ecology.
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
    > http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 05:02:18 BST