Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA03225 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:03:41 +0100 Message-ID: <019001c0bda6$1de8f100$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3ACB98EE.4222.4FF952@localhost> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:57:52 -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: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: Determinism
On 3 Apr 2001, at 11:26, Chris Taylor wrote:
> > To completely model a system, first, your map would have to be
> > coextensive with the territory, thus doubling it; then you'd need a
> > map to represent the Heideggerian change that mapping, which
> > requires perception of, therefore interaction with, would make to
> > the system, then another map of this further altering recursion, and
> > so on ad nauseum ad infinitum. Due to this infinite progress, it
> > is, IN PRINCIPLE, impossible to completely represent a concrete
> > empirical system, such as a mind or an ecology.
>
> 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.
>
Actually, the idea that perfect knowledge of the present would allow
perfect prediction of the future omits the fact that some events are
indeed random, i.e. uncaused, such as positron-electron pairs
winking into and out of existence in phase space (since their
energy states cancel each other out, the principle of conservation
of mass/energy is not violated). Although quantum fluctuations
permit such events to happen, and even their statistical probability
can be calculated, the certain knowledge of where/when a
particular pair will appear is inpossible to determine; in this sense,
not only uncertainty, but also indeterminism, is part and parcel of
the empirical universe.
*Quantum silliness. Bah, humbug!
It is a false dichotomy to insist that either
the universe is wholly random and arbitrary, or it is
superdetermined. Clearly, most of the astronomical events are
indeed determined by mass, velocity and gravitational concerns,
while on the microphysical level, some events are not so
determined.
*Then you are taking the view that, as with Brownian motion, Indeterminacy
averages out on the macro level. Thus rendering the point moot, even where
it valid.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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 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 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 09:06:38 BST