Re: Determinism

From: Chris Taylor (Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 04 2001 - 11:45:54 BST

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

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA28258 (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 11:49:27 +0100
    Message-ID: <3ACAFB62.B359F31D@bioinf.man.ac.uk>
    Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:45:54 +0100
    From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk>
    Organization: University of Manchester
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    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> <3ACAECEF.D15F5D69@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010404111615.B679@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Robin Faichney wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:44:15AM +0100, Chris Taylor wrote:
    > > > > > 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.
    > >
    > > This is science not law - that means (strictly speaking) you have to
    > > disprove my assertion (my surmise of my general experience of the
    > > world).
    >
    > Why?

    Cos, er, that's the way it usually works. Put up a theory, then consider
    it to be provisionally true until killed by the usual ugly little fact.
    Darwinian evolution would be a good example.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 04 2001 - 11:52:22 BST