Re: Determinism

From: Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com)
Date: Mon Apr 09 2001 - 17:30:44 BST

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

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA16807 (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 17:34:37 +0100
    Message-ID: <00c301c0c112$6cb75460$5eaefea9@rcn.com>
    From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <3AD13360.15463.BAAB0F@localhost>
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:30:44 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    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: Monday, April 09, 2001 4:58 AM
    Subject: Re: Determinism

    On 5 Apr 2001, at 3:57, Aaron Agassi wrote:

    >
    > ----- 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!
    >
    No Albertmass turkey for YOU, Scrooge! This blithe dismissal
    does not even rise to the level of an hominem, for nothing in
    particular is cited for attack.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    It would only be moot if all averaging out occurs to an absolute
    degree, and this could only happen with infinitely large objects.
    The statistical difference between absolute ans actual quantum
    averaging may not be very significant for a thrown football, but
    neither is it nonexistent.

    *Since I am skeptical of Quantum Mechanics to begin with, I cannot reject
    any particular interpretation or ramifications even more so, without
    additional reasons. Indeed, if there is any deviation from average, that
    would play into Chaos Theory, having major ramifications, cascading into
    ever greater macro frames of reference. If.

    ===============================================================
    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 - 17:37:25 BST