Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA29628 (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 15:36:27 +0100 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:20:36 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <20010404152036.C675@reborntechnology.co.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$5eaefea9@rcn.com> <20010404112028.C679@reborntechnology.co.uk> <00b701c0bcf4$e83c9360$5eaefea9@rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <00b701c0bcf4$e83c9360$5eaefea9@rcn.com>; from agassi@erols.com on Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 06:49:21AM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 06:49:21AM -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> > 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.
I didn't evade it, but apparently I need to spell it out for you: I mean
uncertainty, *not* indeterminacy.
> > > >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?
Again, I have to spell it out: despite being subjective, freedom is just
as real as -- something real.
-- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 04 2001 - 15:45:59 BST