----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: "Free Will Theorem"

Russell S. writes in his convoluted from attachment-digging out ways:

"Laplace's daemon is a hypothetical creature that knows the exact state
of every particle in the universe. In a deterministic universe, the
daemon could compute the future exactly. Of course the daemon cannot
possibly exist, any more than omniscient beings. In a quantum world,
or a Multiverse, such daemons are laughable fantasies. Nevertheless,
they're often deployed in reductio ad absurdum type arguments to do
with determinism."

Again the stubborn anthropomorphic "one-way" thinking about the idea of a
total determinism in one way only. Everything calculated 'in' there is only
ONE outcome in the world - as the essence of the one-way universe's own
determinism. This was the spirit that made the "total greater than the sum
of its components" - the "Aris-total" of the epistemic level 2500 years ago.
It is an age-old technique to invent a faulty hypothesis (thought
experiment, etc.) and on this basis show the 'ad absurdity' of something.

Determinism as I would like "'to speak about it"' is the idea that whatever
happens (the world as process?) originates in happenings - (beware: not "a
cause" as in a limited model, but) in unlimited ensembles of happenings all
over, not limited to the topical etc. boundaries we erect for our chosen
observations. The happenings are including the 'ideational' part of the
world, which is 'choice-accepting' - consequently not fully predictable.
As in: endogenously impredicative complexities.
Anticipatory is not necessarily predictable and (my) deterministic points to
the other side: not where it goes TO, but comes FROM. Even there it is more
than we can today encompass (compute?) in full.
This may be a worldwide applicational principle of the spirit that made its
minuscule example into QM as the 'uncertainty'.
 Or the cat, or a complimentarity.
Alas, I cannot "'speak about it'", because we are not up to such level. Not
me, not you, not even the materialistic daemon. We all are rooted in the
materialistic reductionist models what our neuronal brain can handle - in a
world of unlimited interconnectedness.

John Mikes




Reply via email to