Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA26027 (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 22:50:20 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01c0bc87$83e4f140$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3AC904E5.10167.246146@localhost> <3AC9A569.258C00E9@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010403122328.A661@reborntechnology.co.uk> <001c01c0bc47$b61e1aa0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010403214415.B699@reborntechnology.co.uk> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:46:17 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Faichney" <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Determinism
> 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.
>
Just what is Uncertainty?
Besides, Super Determinism is both necessary and sufficient for freedom.
After all, what sort of freedom is sheer randomness?
Freedom is characterized by predictable behavior:
Give someone free reign over their impulses, and behavior will be
predictable, and we call them predictable. Likewise, loftier motives.
Because when we experience the greatest freedom in deciding choices, we say
that in so far as such is conceivable, had we to do it again, we'd do it
exactly the same. But when a person of principle is predictable, we call
them, instead, reliable.
> --
> 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 - 22:53:07 BST