IZ wrote:

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

'Stochastic is no more than not assignable to our KNOWN rules of choice.
This is a natural outcome within the view I discribed.
And the 'order' tha '*emerges'* from randomness? maybe it is only a
mathematical formula - just describing the experience, *or *- by additional
input - the missing part that 'made' the "randomness" in the first place,
dissipates by our knowledge being expanded (enriched).
I appreciate ONE true randomness (in math): "Take ANY number..." (puzzles).


On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
> of
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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