Ed, > From my adventures in physics, I came to the conclusion that my > understanding of the physical world had more to do with 1. My ability > to create and use tools for modeling, i.e. from the physical tools of > an advanced computer system to my internal abstraction tools like a > new theorem of group algebra that helps me organize the particle world, > 2. My internal mechanism for modeling, i.e. my internal neural > structure, than it had to do with any 'physical reality'.
Isn't the deterministic universe a working hypothesis that drives a lot of technological development and science? In other words we expect to find regularities and causal webs when we know enough about the system? It seems to me that we can't tell at this point whether we live in a universe that is deterministic all the way down. The permanently inevitable limits on our perception, modelling skills and depth of knowledgebase prevent us from developing a fully deterministic model for all issues based on modelling all details of the universe down to the finest detail. So for most questions we must simplify and work with black boxes at all sorts of levels. This means that the statistical probablistic approach works best for lots of issues but as our knowledgebase, perception and modelling skills improve we can apply approximate deterministic approaches to more things. My guess is that if, as we or AGIs improve our knowledgebase, perception and modelling skills that we find that 'we' can apply approximately deterministic models to explain more and more and more things that previously had to be grappled with using statistical probablisitic approaches then I would say that strengthens the value of the deterministic-universe working hypothesis - but of course since we can never model the whole universe in full detail while we are within the universe iteslf then we will never know whether at bottom it really is deterministic or probablistic - this is the Pooh bear problem. Is there really cheese at the bottom of the honey jar? Can't tell till you get there. I once skimmed a book that claimed we are actually artifacts living in some other being's simulation which was supposedly why the newtonian work of day to day life gives way to the probablisitic quantum world. :) Cheers, Philip ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
