Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA25853 (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 18:12:17 +0100 Message-ID: <00ba01c0c373$33e0cdc0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <F176z1enAqpfkNsjUHQ00005fab@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:08:32 -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: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
>
>
> >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,
Which is an impossible, but never the less legitimate, hypothetical.
>who's to say you'd get the same result twice?
But it is one hypothesis. And what's the alternative? Nothing less than the
rejection of causality as universal.
>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.
===============================================================
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 - 18:17:05 BST