RE: Determinism

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 04 2001 - 12:45:39 BST

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

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA28712 (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 12:49:22 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D5E@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Determinism
    Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:45:39 +0100 
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Why does perfect knowledge negate freedom?

    (BTW, this is not a challenge, just a question).

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Robin Faichney
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2001 9:14 am
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > 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?) 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.
    >
    > --
    > 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 - 12:52:51 BST