On Feb 11, 7:17 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/2011 7:56 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 2:06 am, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>  wrote:
>
> >> On 2/9/2011 5:02 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 10, 12:19 am, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2/9/2011 3:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Mikes<jami...@gmail.com>      
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Stathis,
> >>>>>> I like your implications:
> >>>>>> "... I assume you think that such an attempt would fail, that
> >>>>>> although some processes in the brain such as chemistry and the
> >>>>>> behaviour of electric fields can be modelled, there are other
> >>>>>> processes that can't be modelled. What processes are these, and what
> >>>>>> evidence do you have that they exist?"
>
> >>>>>> I am speaking about processes we don't (yet?) know at all, like some
> >>>>>> centuries ago electricity etc. etc. and in due course we learn about
> >>>>>> phenomena not fitting into our existing 'models'.
> >>>>>> I don't volunteer to describe such processes before we learn about 
> >>>>>> them (how
> >>>>>> stupid of me) - netiher do I have "evidence" for the "existence and
> >>>>>> behavior" of such unkown/able processes.
> >>>>>> Our cultural induction allows a widening of models, processes, 
> >>>>>> phenomena,
> >>>>>> mechanisms.
> >>>>>> We even advanced from the Geocentric vision.
>
> >>>>> One thing that we have found with all new physical phenomena is that
> >>>>> they follow physical laws that can be described algorithmically.
>
> >>>> Physical laws aren't "out there".  They are models we invent.
>
> >>> It's  not satisfactory to say that there is no lawfulness to  the
> >>> universe
> >>> at all. Is there no reason the sun will rise tomorrow?
>
> >> That's the model.  I don't know how to define a "reason" except in terms
> >> of some model.
>
> > "We define it in terms of a model" doesn't mean "it just is a model".
> > Models
> > are models *of* something.
>
> Sure.  Where did I say otherwise.  We just can't be sure what the really
> real is that the model is supposed to apply to.

We can't be sure about anything. However, we should bet on
in our best models.

>  My point is that we
> prefer physical laws that are algorithmic, because otherwise they aren't
> very useful.

Whatever that means. Deterministic? Computable? Exactly soluble? Each
of those is its own
can of worms.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to