Re: Determinism

From: Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com)
Date: Wed Apr 04 2001 - 11:49:21 BST

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

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA28363 (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 11:54:08 +0100
Message-ID: <00b701c0bcf4$e83c9360$5eaefea9@rcn.com>
From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
References: <3AC904E5.10167.246146@localhost> <3AC9A569.258C00E9@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010403122328.A661@reborntechnology.co.uk> <001c01c0bc47$b61e1aa0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010403214415.B699@reborntechnology.co.uk> <004d01c0bc87$83e4f140$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010404091412.B10999@reborntechnology.co.uk> <008e01c0bce3$3a40d7a0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010404112028.C679@reborntechnology.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Determinism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:49:21 -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 6:20 AM
    Subject: Re: Determinism

    > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:42:48AM -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
    > >
    > > > > > 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.
    >
    > By uncertainty I mean uncertainty.
    >
    Acknowledging one's own uncertainty for want of perfect knowledge is quite
    another thing from claiming that, objectively, anything is uncertain,
    whatever that means. And thus, my question is legitimate, and should nor be
    evaded.

    > > >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.
    >
    > You got it!
    >
    > Now all we have to do is get it clear that subjectivity is not generally
    > inferior (or superior) to objectivity.
    >
    What ever are you talking about?

    > --
    > 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 - 11:59:16 BST