Re: Determinism

From: Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com)
Date: Wed Apr 04 2001 - 11:52:07 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: taboos" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA28399 (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 11:56:57 +0100
Message-ID: <00ce01c0bcf5$4b3d6ca0$5eaefea9@rcn.com>
From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
References: <3AC904E5.10167.246146@localhost> <3AC9A569.258C00E9@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010403122328.A661@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC9D88B.47D228B1@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010403214234.A699@reborntechnology.co.uk> <005c01c0bc8e$bc8e6380$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010404090223.A10999@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3ACAECEF.D15F5D69@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010404111615.B679@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3ACAFB62.B359F31D@bioinf.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Determinism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:52:07 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: "Chris Taylor" <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:45 AM
    Subject: Re: Determinism

    > 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
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    Truth is the correspondence of statements to reality. That's objective, not
    "provisional" (sic).

    ===============================================================
    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 - 12:02:26 BST