Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA22437 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:14:37 GMT Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020124050159.03529400@pop.cogeco.ca> X-Sender: hkhenson@pop.cogeco.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 05:11:46 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@cogeco.ca> Subject: Re: necessity of mental memes In-Reply-To: <200201240931.g0O9VZd05789@mail24.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 01:31 AM 24/01/02 -0800, "Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com>
wrote:
snip
>The assumption is that there would be an omniscient and omnipotent viewer
>and actor to mandate and register such thinge; this is an unfounded (and
>unfoundable) assumption. OF COURSE everthing appears fron hindsight to be
>necessary, just as things appear in foresight to be contingent, but in the
>present cusp where causally effective decisions are made, neither
>assumption can be made, for the appearance/reality distinction collapses
>on this plane.
I make no assumptions of O & O actors and the viewer was thought experiment
only.
>Consider another point: photonic pairs are constantly popping into and out
>of phase space. Are we willing to postulate that causality reaches out of
>existence intop ninexistence to cause them to appear exactly when and
>where they do, and to return to nonexistence under the same terms? This
>involves a contradiction in terms born of the overreaching of causality
>into nonexistence. We can predict within a certain margin or error how
>many pairs will appear and disapprae, but this statistical model has no
>force on the individual event, any more than the decay of radioactive
>elements is predictable IN PRINCIPLE on the basis of individual atoms, or
>the quantum jump of electrons is predictable IN PRINCIPLE for each atom
>exposed to energy excitation. Find a working alternative to quantum
>physics and quantum chromodynamics that possessses anything near their
>empirical predictive power, and I will perhaps acknoledge that you are
>speaking from the realm of knpwledge, rather than the!
>realm of belief.
I don't see how QM fails to fit the caused or random explanation for
everything. But if you don't buy this, then are you proposing something
else within the boundary of what is known? Or outside it?
Keith Henson
===============================================================
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 Jan 24 2002 - 10:52:44 GMT