Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA25790 (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 17:52:39 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.183] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:48:40 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F176z1enAqpfkNsjUHQ00005fab@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2001 16:48:40.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D4F2230:01C0C370] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Determinism
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:24:11 -0500
>
>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.
>
If you were to rewind the tape of history (or an historical process like
evolution) and push play, who's to say you'd get the same result twice? This
is contingency. Gould explores these avenues, I think, in _Wonderful Life_,
but I haven't read that book yet so must divine its contents based on second
and third hand sources at best.
Anyway previous events shape the paths of future events. One might not get
the same result twice and the saying that those who ignore history are
doomed to repeat it (or some such) has its drawbacks.
There's also the problem that you can't get there from here. Future paths
may be constrained by historical baggage or limitations. For improvement you
are stuck with the option of modifying what you already have. De novo
innovations do not appear out of thin air.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
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 - 17:57:04 BST