Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA27572 (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 09:52:55 +0100 Message-ID: <009501c0bce4$00b681a0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3AC904E5.10167.246146@localhost> <3AC9A569.258C00E9@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010403122328.A661@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC9D88B.47D228B1@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010403214234.A699@reborntechnology.co.uk> <005c01c0bc8e$bc8e6380$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010404090223.A10999@reborntechnology.co.uk> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:48:21 -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 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: Determinism
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:37:59PM -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:04:59PM +0100, Chris Taylor wrote:
> > > > Oh god. Theorising is obviously a bit tricky, so I'll put the point
the
> > > > other way round - there is nothing which happens that does not have
a
> > > > cause.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> >
> > Ocam's Razor:
> > In explanation, don't multiply entities unnecessarily. Causality is
> > sufficient. The burden of evidentiary support rests upon the positive.
It's
> > not for anyone else to prove that there ISN'T an unnecessary redundant
> > additional unknown factor aside from causality.
>
> "An unnecessary redundant additional unknown factor" is redundant (as
> well as incoherent). I'm only suggesting that perhaps some events don't
> have a cause. In this case, "there is nothing which happens that does
> not have a cause" is the positive upon which the burden of evidentiary
> support rests.
>
No, it is a competing hypothesis, yes, also positive, upon which the burden
of evidentiary support also rests. A burden of evidentiary support which is
met, to a high degree, by a countless tally of demonstrably caused results.
And no other sort.
Or is there any example of a confirmed uncaused result? Is the hypothesis
that there is any such thing, even testable?
> --
> 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 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 - 09:55:37 BST