Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA11776 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:23:29 GMT Message-ID: <019801c17620$c6756d20$5624f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <001001c16c62$3552d3e0$3524f4d8@teddace> <3BF8F821.email@example.com> Subject: Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 18:19:26 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > Complexity in no way contradicts determinism. Even fractals are made
> > simple, deterministic equations. What tips over the apple cart is
> > novelty.
> > As Bergson argued a century ago, the meaning of time is that the
> > is NOT determined. It hasn't all happened yet. To assert determinism
> > to deny time. Indeed, that's exactly what physics does, not just since
> > Einstein, but all the way to back to Descartes. Positivistic science
> > 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
The novel has already been written once it's perched in your hands. Prior
to that, in the imagination of the author, it is literally *novel.* No
different than any product of creativity, human or otherwise.
I used to believe exactly what everyone else did. I fully ingested the
notion that the universe is determined. No exceptions, not for life or
people or anything that could ever exist. As this belief evaporated in my
late teens, I began to wonder why I'd held onto it so fanatically. It's a
comforting view, as it removes any possible responsibility for our actions.
Ultimately, we will attain perfect certainty and therefore security. And we
don't have to feel guilty about anything we did on the road to this to
Utopia, because none of our actions occurred on the part of our own free
will. We don't even exist. That's a pretty comforting view when you're
scared, uncertain, not just vulnerable to death but to truth (i.e. shame and
guilt and regret). Erasing ourselves is a nice little trick. But its
psychological utility, by itself, doesn't make the assertion false. In
fact, it's quite a simple matter to demonstrate the necessity for intrinsic
(self) existence-- universal, biological, and human.
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 26 2001 - 02:29:35 GMT