Re: Determinism

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Apr 11 2001 - 07:15:24 BST

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: Determinism"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA20966 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:12:52 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:15:24 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Message-ID: <3AD3B02C.4135.798B9A@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <00c301c0c112$6cb75460$5eaefea9@rcn.com>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 9 Apr 2001, at 12:30, Aaron Agassi wrote:

    >
    > ----- 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.
    >
    You need to visit Everette Allie's website; Chris Lofting can give
    you the addy.
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 : Wed Apr 11 2001 - 07:17:11 BST