On Apr 20, 8:53 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
It's still rules. If there are no known rules BECAUSE the actual rules
are not deterministic, science can still function with the sort of
rules it still
functions with. In you previous comment, ou sounded like you were
deriving the conclusion "everything
is deterministic" from the premise "science works on rules", and that
in fact follow. Now you seem to be deriving "everything is
deterministic" from itself.
> 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,
Maybe a deterministic law "is just a mathematical formula". The point
whether we should have respect for the fact that these things work,
and whether we should do so in a biased or an even-handed way.
The determinist is impressed by Newton's deterministic laws,and happy
to reify them,
but not by the Law of Large Numbers, which shows how apparent
order can emerge from chaos. Yet both work. So it looks like
the determinist is running on bias.
> *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 email@example.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at