On 4/22/2011 1:23 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Peter,
if we 'free-up' our minds to think wider than our conventional sciences based 'unconventionality' (as applied on this list frequently) and recognize the unlimited Everything in the complexity of the wholeness we end up in (my?) agnosticism: We know only part of the total, visualize WITHIN our mind-restricted imaging and formulate 'models' of the already known world (already: because it widened by newer input historically as we 'learn'). The totality's inter influenceing results in changing relations - partly followable - acknowledged by the part of our 'then' knowledge. In such view "Random" is "I don't know", Chaos is: "I don't know" and stochastic is sort of a random.


Not necessarily. Why not free-up your mind to think wider and include the thought that some randomness may be intrinsic, not the result of ignorance of some deeper level?

What conventional science does is a compromise into the "almost": our technology is "almost perfect", some planes fall off from the sky, some sicknesses/wars break out, some genetic mishaps occur, some theories fail, etc. etc. Compromising means to invent cute factors that enhance a match (at least mathematically) in cases of trouble. Presumptions make assumptions and vice versa, in endless series and at the end it is believed as a fact. Deterministic? there is SOME order that keeps the world churning, applying ALL relational changes in the wholeness including ALL ingredients of the Everything. We don't know what are such 'ingredients' only the imagined 'model-substitutions' we use in our limited knowledge.

But we do know that the intrinsic randomness of QM is consistent with all our current knowledge. So to assert that the world is deterministic is only presumption.

Brent

We don't know what kind of alterations the relations in the unlimited totality may undergo, we only experience SOME and interpret them within our figment (physical world). Presumably - and now I use this word as well <G> - there is an order in the wholeness and this encompasses all the totality in the alterations of the relationships - so I feel justified to use the word 'deterministic'. Not to "understand" it, though. In limbo - you say: be my guest. We cannot overstep our capabilities and think only within our models. By human logic, which has no claim to be the general characteristic of nature (the totality). We think human. Me, too. A bit stepping further seems to be allowed in 'anticipation' what I just study how to get to it,
on the bases of Robert Rosen and Mihai Nadin. I am not there yet.
Rules, mathematical formula, quantum science, physics, other conventional sciences: all figments of the human mind how to explain the partial phenomena we 'accepted' over the time of our existence here on Earth. One more obstacle: users of different vocabularies cannot effectively argue with each other, the meaning of the words is different. Bruno has a vocabulary, conventional sciences use another one, my concepts are differently identified, religions have their own versions, every one understands arguments within their own vocabulary - the rest is 'stupid'.
Regards
John

n Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:33 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com <mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>> wrote:



    On Apr 20, 8:53 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com
    <mailto: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
    "out there"
    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
    does not
    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
    is
    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
    <mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 19, 9:39 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com
    <mailto: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
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
    > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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.

--
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