Re: Determinism

From: Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com)
Date: Wed Apr 04 2001 - 09:42:48 BST

  • Next message: Aaron Agassi: "Re: Determinism" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA27489 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:47:19 +0100
Message-ID: <008e01c0bce3$3a40d7a0$5eaefea9@rcn.com>
From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
References: <3AC904E5.10167.246146@localhost> <3AC9A569.258C00E9@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010403122328.A661@reborntechnology.co.uk> <001c01c0bc47$b61e1aa0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010403214415.B699@reborntechnology.co.uk> <004d01c0bc87$83e4f140$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010404091412.B10999@reborntechnology.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Determinism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:42:48 -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: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:14 AM
    Subject: Re: Determinism

    > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
    > >
    > > > > > > 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.
    > > > >
    > > > Uncertainty is both necessary and sufficient for freedom.
    > > >
    > > Just what is Uncertainty?
    >
    > Uncertainty is the state of not knowing. (Don't you have a dictionary,
    > Aaron?)

    I suspect that you actually do know what I am asking.

    By uncertainty, then, you mean measurement uncertainty, and not
    Indeterminacy, an entirely different (and dubvious) concept.

    >Perfect knowledge negates freedom, but perfect knowledge is
    > acheivable neither in practice nor in theory, so freedom is not negated.
    >
    > As long as people try to understand freedom as a physical phenomenon,
    > confusion will reign.
    >

    Free choices being subjective, then, do not contradict with objective
    determinism.

    > --
    > 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 : Wed Apr 04 2001 - 09:50:02 BST