Re: Determinism

From: Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com)
Date: Thu Apr 12 2001 - 21:11:01 BST

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

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA26362 (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 21:14:46 +0100
    Message-ID: <00ce01c0c38c$b2191580$5eaefea9@rcn.com>
    From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <F1432ZhCl8aii08N8yx00006333@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:11:01 -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 2:04 PM
    Subject: Re: Determinism

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >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).
    >
    Perhaps I only recognize the distinction, Epistemologically.

    ===============================================================
    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 - 21:17:46 BST