On Apr 19, 9:39 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Brent wrote:*
> **
> *"I would point out that "indeterminism" can have two different sources.
> One is internal, due to the occasional quantum random event that gets
> amplified to quasi-classical action.  The other, much more common, is the
> unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic) external event that influences
> one through perception.  I don't think this affects the above analysis
> except to qualify the idea that external indeterminism is justly considered
> enslavement*."
> An enlightened Hungarian king wrote a royal order in the 13th c. (King
> Coloman, the bookworm) "De Strigiis quae non sunt..." i.e. "About the
>  sorcerers that do NOT exist..." - yet 1/2 millennium later they still burnt
> witches the World over. So is it with the ominous
> Fre-Will, and many more atavistically developed meme-stuff. Especially in
> the theocratic religion chapters, but conventional science not exempted
> either. As much as I like Brent's remark, I point out the (conventional
> science) figment of the Physical World and its domains like a 'quantum
> random event' - which would make all our 'ordered' world (view) irrelevant
> and haphazardously changing, instead of following those 'oganized' physics-
> (and other scientific)- rules we 'beleive in" and apply.

Even stochastic rules? Science can easily explain how the appearance
order emerges from randomness.

 Even Brent's
> "quasi-classical action" is part of our scientific figment. Those "possibly
> deterministic" EXTERNAL events are within our 'model' of the so far known
> part we carry (in pesonalized adjustment) in our 'mind' - outside that SELF
> in our mini-solipsism. Part of our *perceived reality.*
> I like* * "*the unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic)*'  distinction
> as pointing to the influences upon (our known) topics WITHIN the limited
> model of our perceived reality by the 'beyond model' infinite complexity of
> the everything. We have no way to learn what that infinite rest of the world
> may be, yet it influences the part we got access to so it is deterministic
> in our indeterministic - unpredictable  world.
> "Enslavement" is a term I would be careful to use in such discussion because
> of its historic - societal general meaning. We - in my opinion - are not
> slaves in the unlimited everything: we are part of it.Embedded into and
> influenced by all of it.
> We just do not see beyond our limitations - my agnosticism.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to