Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA28172 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:25:26 GMT Message-ID: <3BF8F821.firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:16:33 +0000 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work References: <001001c16c62$3552d3e0$3524f4d8@teddace> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> Complexity in no way contradicts determinism. Even fractals are made from
> simple, deterministic equations. What tips over the apple cart is
> As Bergson argued a century ago, the meaning of time is that the universe
> is NOT determined. It hasn't all happened yet. To assert determinism
> is to
> deny time. Indeed, that's exactly what physics does, not just since
> but all the way to back to Descartes. Positivistic science has always
> reduced existence to a graph, with time as its fourth variable.
And the problem is..? Why can't time just be the long axis of the
'prism' of the other three dimensions (*that* was clear). I don't
understand why there is this need to cling to a universe with novelty.
The detective book already has an ending when you start reading it, but
the fact that the ending isn't made up on the spot as you turn the
last page doesn't spoil it.
Chris Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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 : Mon Nov 19 2001 - 12:43:52 GMT