On 23 Apr 2011, at 17:26, John Mikes 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?

OK. (BM = Brent Meeker, here, not me). But I agree with Brent, and a perfect example of such intrinsic randomness is a direct consequence of determinism in the computer science. That is what is illustrated by the iteration of self-multiplication. Most observers, being repeatedly duplicated into W and M, will have not only random history (like WWMMMWMMMWWWWWMWMMWWM ...) but a majority will have incompressible experience, in the sense of Chaitin. Self-duplication gives an example of abrupt indeterminacy (as opposed to other long term determinist chaotic behavior).

In particular, the empiric infered QM indeterminacy confirms one of the most startling feature of digital mechanism: that if we look below our computationalist subtitution level , our computations (our sub- level computations) are random. With comp, determinism entaills first person and first person plural intrinsic randomness existence.

Bruno



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. 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>. 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 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- l...@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- l...@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 .


--
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 .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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