Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA08164 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:36:34 +0100 Message-ID: <023401c0be28$491ed2e0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <F961bXS0FhKktkpgnkT0000132f@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:29:38 -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: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> >Subject: Re: Determinism
> >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:52:07 -0400
> >
> >
> >----- 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).
> >
> >
> What about truth as coherence? Would it be incoherent of me to say that
> something may be "true" within the limited context of a theoretical system
> or belief set, yet untrue when tested against reality?
>
That's not truth but logical consistency. That given one thing the other
thing follows, may be logically true, even a priori. Objective reality,
however, and is a post priori matter, Epistemologically speaking.
===============================================================
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 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 00:39:23 BST