Re: Determinism

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Apr 12 2001 - 06:17:44 BST

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

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA23950 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:15:09 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:17:44 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Message-ID: <3AD4F428.17698.989457@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <003c01c0c30b$5473b6a0$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 12 Apr 2001, at 0:44, Aaron Agassi wrote:

    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:24 PM
    > Subject: Re: Determinism
    >
    >
    > > On 11 Apr 2001, at 12:31, Aaron Agassi wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > From: "Robin Faichney" <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    > > > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 6:18 AM
    > > > Subject: Re: Determinism
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:45:41AM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net
    > > > > wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > The only way two scenarios can be absolutely identical is if
    > > > > > > you look at one scenario twice. In which case, the same
    > > > > > > decision would be made.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > I hope you don't think that's a glib or tricksy answer. I
    > > > > > > mean it absolutely seriously. If everything is the same,
    > > > > > > then everything will be the same.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > But the same situation cannot ever recur; even memory of the
    > > > > > first would be too much, as would the simple molecular changes
    > > > > > of ourselves and our environs. The impossible is an
    > > > > > illegitimate hypothetical.
    > > > >
    > > > > If you'd been reading to understand, rather than skimming to
    > > > > argue, you'd have seen that's exactly what I meant.
    > > > >
    > > > But he assumes that limits to simulation must also then apply to
    > > > initial reality!
    > > >
    > > No, I'm saying that since nonrepeatable situations (such as
    > > historical ones repeated absolutely exactly) cannot by definition be
    > > rerun, it is a logically misplaced article of faith to assume any
    > > result whatsoever from such impossible trials.
    >
    > The thought experiment is merely an illustration.
    >
    One that fails to achieve it's purpose. Bad analogies can fail to
    adhere to their object, or fail to meet the test of possibility.
    > > > > --
    > > > > Robin Faichney
    > > > > Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
    > > > > (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
    > > > >
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 12 2001 - 06:18:44 BST