Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA16292 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:28:07 +0100 Message-ID: <3AD1AA06.8AFC4B4D@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:24:38 +0100 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism References: <3AD131CE.29348.B4897C@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > There could exist no such thing as meaning in a superdetermined
> > > world, nor could there have been any reason for our self-conscious
> > > awarenesses to have evolved without the ability to reflect not
> > > conferring someevolutionary advantage, which it certainly wouldn't
> > > if (and this is the absurd consequence of superdeterminism) every
> > > motion of all our bodies was indelibly written on ths parchment of
> > > the universe one nanosecond after the Big Bang.
> >
> > Many futures for the universe are equally valid looking forward (to us
> > and anything else but a godlike philosophical construct), but looking
> > back, you can find reasons. How would you know, before the fact, that
> > your superdetermined path wasn't randomly determined rather than
> > inevitable? Therefore why would it make any difference to us simple
> > folk (or organic evolution)?
> >
> I would maintain that evolution acting upon the happenstance
> genesis of life is EXACTLY why I'm here, and that is why it can't
> have been big bang superdetermined that I am. Superdeterminism
> and evolution cannot coexist, for superdeterminism turns the
> universe into a static object, with past and future all conflated into
> an unchangeable tralfamadorean present, and suited only for the
> frozen dead, while evolution is a dynamic and irresistible force,
> changing everything it touches, and touching everything living.
Apart from recourse to the quantum, how do you know your universe
doesn't exist in that state (linear, with all other theoretically
possible variants 'greyed out'). My (absurdly reductio'd) point is that
although many universes are possible, after the fact, only one will have
occurred. I can't think of any part of that occurrence which could not
be explained by a (theoretical) being with perfect knowledge of the
state of all the matter and energy in that universe.
> > As for proof - push your coffee cup to the edge of the table, watch it
> > fall. Cause, effect. I can think of more if you want...
> >
> What causes the positron-electron pairs to wink into and out of
> existence? The question isn't whether or not you can think of more
> examples of causality, but whather I can think of one
> counterexample, which puts the lie to universal claims.
So far we have one (on which the jury is apparently still out)...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 13:30:54 BST