----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: Re: indeterminacy, chaos, and complexity -L3
> Dan Minette wrote: > > One of the things that I would like to do is break the cycle of > > repeated arguments, that tend to exist after mostly the same people > > cover mostly the same territory. One thought I had was triggered by > > the use of the word "rational" in several posts. I started thinking > > about framing the argument in terms of axiomatic systems, seeing > what > > is derived from various sets of axioms, and what just appears to be > > derived from a casual use of the axioms. > > Maybe I am just dense, but I cannot see what the above paragraph had > to do with the balance of the post. I am setting up several axioms in several posts. I will then use those axioms. > > Well, this post has gotten long while giving us just one axiom. > But, > > I think it helps lay the groundwork for explaining my thinking. I'd > > welcome any critique of this analysis. > > > And I didn't see what I would clearly identify as *the* axiom. This gives us a rule for the use of complexity. Complexity can result in phenomena that are counter-intuitive to one who just thinks in general about basic principals. Complexity cannot result in phenomena that are at odds with the basic principals. > Maybe you are doing this in reverse?!? > It might be easier to understand if you stated your axioms first and > then explained and analysed them in individual posts. I'll have another post with a couple more axioms shortly. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
