Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA25742 (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 21:52:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:44:15 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <20010403214415.B699@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AC904E5.10167.246146@localhost> <3AC9A569.258C00E9@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010403122328.A661@reborntechnology.co.uk> <001c01c0bc47$b61e1aa0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <001c01c0bc47$b61e1aa0$5eaefea9@rcn.com>; from agassi@erols.com on Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:09:34AM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:09:34AM -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:26:49AM +0100, Chris Taylor wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > The practical difficulties of the mapping aren't really relevant. The
> > > point is that *in principle* if you could have perfect knowledge you
> > > could perfectly predict. There are no ghosts in any machines. In
> > > practice we can only work within practical boundaries.
> >
> > It is, IN PRINCIPLE, impossible to have perfect knowledge. This makes
> > your scenario meaningless.
> >
> Bullshit! The perfect knowledge here discussed is not a necessary premise
> for ant conclusion, but merely a hypothetical for the purpose of
> illustration of an idea difficult to express otherwise.
>
> Let's rephrase the question:
> Is there any other reason for any different effect, except for different
> cause? Determinism says no. But if Determinism isn't true, then the answer
> is yes. But what would that additional factor be? I am aware of no clear
> answer.
Uncertainty is both necessary and sufficient for freedom.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 - 21:58:16 BST