Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA26041 (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 19:08:30 +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 14:04:33 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F1432ZhCl8aii08N8yx00006333@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2001 18:04:34.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[07936DB0:01C0C37B] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Determinism
>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:08:32 -0400
>
>
>----- 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.
>
>
So you think that if the tape was rewound, everything would happen in
*EXACTLY* the same manner?
Perhap you are conflating idiographic science (historical disciplines
dealing with unique events) with nomothetic science (disciplines dealing
with repeatable events).
_________________________________________________________________
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 - 19:11:32 BST