Re: Determinism

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001 - 16:13:09 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: [Re: Determinism]"

    Received: by id PAA03522 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:38:40 +0100
    Message-ID: <003b01c0c5be$aacd1900$5b01bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <><002d01c0c593$4c0479c0$0404bed4@default> <000c01c0c590$69056e60$>
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:13:09 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Aaron Agassi <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 11:42 AM
    Subject: Re: Determinism

    > Since I hold Superdeterminism necessary and sufficient for freedom, my
    > position, precisely, is that omniscience would narrow down choices to the
    > one optimal decision. Never the less, this would be, indeed, empowering,
    > course.

    << Of course and I accept your position, but IMO still there is a twist
    and turn which I did not mention in my previous post.
    The todays political agreement that everyone is equal and has to be
    equal be treated makes it in my view very difficult for your Superdeter-
    The equality- principle is on the one hand a positive actor towards
    a necessary freedom for all of us. It is a good thing that everyone is
    capable to get access to the Net and to the information on it.
    But on the other hand, the same principle works as a negative actor
    if indeed all kinds of people do not possess the ability to deal with all
    of that kind of information.

    Where IMO you take determism as a necessary and sufficient actor
    for freedom, you destroy (as in a perversity) in the same process the
    differences which exists between and among people.
    As you destroy all the differences in name of freedom, ( you determine
    which and what is necessary and which and what is sufficient for us
    to know what freedom is and means) than in my opinion you destroy
    what Wade said... you destroy certain amounts of " Quality " !!
    And you can indeed rightly argue that quality of knowledge is not in
    correpondence to reality due to the fact that truth may or may be not
    be known.
    But the same argument goes for knowledge. What we know now, can
    be gone tomorrow or is to be completely wrong. You make of freedom
    a quantitive factor where IMO it has to be a qualitive one.

    Like Nietzsche said, you have to have conflict. Determine or Super-
    determine all what is necessary and or is sufficient for freedom is not
    IMO good path to deal with such matters.
    But if it is OK for you, I have no problems with it...



    ( I am, because we are) never the less free

    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 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 15:47:43 BST