On Apr 23, 4:26 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > Brent wrote (and thanks for the reply): > > * (JM):...In such view "Random" is "I don't know", Chaos > is: "I don't know" and stochastic is sort of a random. ..."* > > *BM: 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? * > ** > Please consider first my - * 'in such view' * - furthermore may I remind you > of all those "natural law" based (physical and other) conventional > scientific tenets that (in our science) we can and do rely on? No > haphazardly emerging counter-facts disturb the "scientific" picture by a > 'random' input of the unexpect/ed/able.
Maybe not beyond what has already been marshalled under stochastic laws. > I am not an expert in 'random': my mother tongue (not Indo-European) does > not include such term (word) - we used earlier: the 'exbeliebig' translated > (from Latino-German: as 'liked'). Now even in this language they apply the > word "RANDOM" because 'we may not LIKE it<G>. If you can understand what determinism means, you can understand what indeterminism means. > Russell S - if I remember well - spoke about some 'small?' random, > identified within a topic - please correct me if I am wrong. I am talking > about the "absolute?" random, having no math - or natural limitations. > Like: 'out of a blue'. > > *BM: 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, your slip is showing: *"all our current knowledge"* is restricted > to our present conventional sciences based on what I call > * JM: "...imagined 'model-substitutions' we use in our limited > knowledge." * > > I would call QM a brilliant adage within our *present model-view* *(the > physical world figment*). > And YES, I agree that "deterministic" is a presumption. (So far it did not > pop off from my image). Agnosticism can take it > With my (yes, I am human) logic I need some rules instead of the total > 'randomness' we happen to live in. Some origin - beyond my present > knowledge-based imagination - and some course of the Everything - who knows > where? - at a certain point of which we 'exist' and view the World as well > as our capabilities allow. > > John M > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > 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> wrote: > > >> 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 > >> "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> 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
