Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA29144 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:25:16 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:27:54 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD7371A.12740.4EBC0D@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010413204051.B2347@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD5FDE4.6866.4549B1@localhost>; from email@example.com on Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 07:11:32PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 13 Apr 2001, at 20:40, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 07:11:32PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > The > simultaneity and instantaneity of cause and effect is not
> well > understood outside philosophical circles.
> On present evidence, it's not well understood inside them, either.
> > In the case of instantaneous
> > simultaneous alterations concommitant upon object interactions, it
> > may indeed be improper to label one to be the cause, and the other
> > to be the effect, exclusively, and perhaps the terms themselves are
> > archaic and misleading, and need to be jettisoned.
> Looks like you'll still be clinging to "top-down causation" after the
> rest of us have given up causation altogether.
> I'd be interested in your thoughts on the notion of causation as
> energy flow. See http://www.ii01.org/causation.html It'd be a pity
> if you rejected such a potentially fruitful avenue just because of its
> temporal aspect, but then again there can be a degree of amusement in
> watching certain sorts of people squirm...
More like a transfer, and this can happen in a Planck instant. And
many such transfers can be bunched very close together, and be
mistaken for one, just as we see many frames of a film and think
that the characters within it demonstrate flowing movement when
they don't, it is just an artifact of our minimum registering sense of
tempral differentiation, kinda like the impossibility of telling the
difference between two lengths which are a single angstrom apart
by means of unaided perception, but concerning the temporal
aspect, rather than the spatial. I suggest you read Paul Kolers
(ASPECTS OF MOTION PERCEPTION) and Nelson Goodman
(WAYS OF WORLDMAKING, CH. 5, A PUZZLE ABOUT
PERCEPTION) to further inform you on these issues.
> Robin Faichney
> Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
> (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 23:28:28 BST