Re: necessity of mental memes

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 10:11:46 GMT

  • Next message: Stephen Springette: "Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger"

    Received: by id KAA22437 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:14:37 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
    Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 05:11:46 -0500
    From: Keith Henson <>
    Subject: Re: necessity of mental memes
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    At 01:31 AM 24/01/02 -0800, "Joe Dees" <>



    >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

    >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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 24 2002 - 10:52:44 GMT