Pete and Eugen quoted (another John) :
> John, I am not sure I understand everything you said. One thing I
> would say along lines I think you suggest:  Determinism suggests a
> closed system.  If you don't have a closed system, you don't get
> deterministic predictiveness....<

which gives rise to say my take on determinism (vs ANY type of 'free will'
of parts of an interconnected/influencing universe/s/): in the comp-sense
(my
brainwashed-in nat. science-thinking - sorry) I skip all 'random'
occurrence.

Things occur (exist) by the influence of things, what I call:
deterministically.
It has no postulate of a prediction (unless: backwards predictable
(anticipation after the fact)  from the (known) influences) because in my
wholistic view the
components are not (all) listable starting from a complexity. Only those are
available which are considered within the model we analyze.
So I do not include (human - logical - scientific) predictiveness into my
determinism, just the fact that all events are 'consequences' of events.
Recognized events (in our models) or not.

Causality restricts this unlimitedness to some inter-boundary influences, a
case of reductionism, probably 'closed'. In the 'free' determinism, ie a
play of
the unlimited influences, the open system can respond to unlimited (kind)
instigations according to the ever changing "rest of the world" and the
systems accessibility (+ and -) to  various effects (I/O).

> Could you explain what you mean here by "holistic and unclosable"?<

"This" John differentiates a "wholistic" from the habituel 'holistic' by
some
unlimited complexity of the interconnectedness. Unclosable? Reductionism
closes the views (observables) into models of intra-boundary cuts,
disregarding the 'rest of the world' beyond those boundaries (set for the
observation).
Wholistic complexity view acknowledges the fuzziness of unlimited effects on
everything by everything. Not a decent case for comp, unless we apply the
unlimited comp-time and infinite memory content, probabilities with
unlimited variables and statisticsal conclusions with infinite number of
observations.
Don't ask me for details. I call it my "scientific agnosticism".

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Carlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Doug Porpora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Determinism

> Hello,
>
> On Jan 15, 2004, at 7:25 PM, Doug Porpora wrote:
> > <snip>
> Pete Carlton



Reply via email to