I wish I had the insight into future development of our knowledge-base. Or
am I rather happy, not to have it?
Of course I do not contemplate dualism or any other 'expired' folly.
I had a hint lately that 'determinism' can be thought of in more than one
way. On the other side: random was mentioned as absolute and relative
(this was not the proper word, sorry).
Did the accolades of Ptolemy foresee the Big Bang cosmology (whether we
consider it 'proper', or not)?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: "Free Will Theorem"
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:04 PM
> >To: Russell Standish; Stathis Papaioannou
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: Re: "Free Will Theorem"
> >I am sure you do a decent job. Tierra, however, does not include facts
> >that will be discovered (observed?) centuries from now. So the system
> >is based on a limited model of today's (yesterday's?) modeling. It may
> >give valuable answers to situations we face now, but your remark about
> >applying the unknowable (RNGs) does not secure the outcome to match
> > the future ways we may find later on.
> >Of course this is the way to do research, science and the (limited model
> >based) results are treasures for the further work. Our entire technology
> >been developed this way.
> >John Mikes
> You make much of the fact that our knowledge is incomplete and the
> that our most fundamental theories of the world may change. But change to
> what? What third possibility is there between random and deterministic?
> you contemplate dualism, which is not a future theory but one of the past?
> Brent Meeker