Re: Determinism

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Apr 13 2001 - 01:18:56 BST

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: Is Suicide Contagious? A Case Study in Applied Memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA26814 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:16:21 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:18:56 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Message-ID: <3AD5FFA0.8939.4C0E44@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <F1432ZhCl8aii08N8yx00006333@hotmail.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 14:04, Scott Chase wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >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.
    > >
    Not for the purpose of proving a positive, but only for the purpose of
    eliminating a competing alternative.
    > >
    > > >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.
    > >
    But that's okay. Ask the P-E pairs, or ask free humans engaged in
    their own sociocultural brownian motions. You can do without the
    blanketing security and comfort of your Superdetermination
    hypothesis, Linus.
    > >
    > 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).
    >
    Yeah, he is, and he thinks that the same rules can apply to both
    disciplines, when in the case of idiography, there isn't even a
    'same.'
    > _________________________________________________________________ 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 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 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 01:19:29 BST