On 4/24/2011 8:32 AM, 1Z wrote:

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

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." *

This makes a false constrast between models and out current knowledge. Our current knowledge, so called, is just embodied in our models which we rely on, pending further discoveries. To recognize that the intrinsic randomness of QM is just an element of our current model no more justifies asserting that real reality must be deterministic than noting that our current model of the Earth as a bumpy ellipsoid is subject of refinement, justifies asserting the Earth is flat. It's is fine, and scientific, to criticize our current knowledge - but it needs to be supported by more than just the fact that our knowledge is provisional, because it will *always* be provisional.

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.

I think this bespeaks a common misconception; perhaps related to the indeterminism=not-determinism Peter points to above. Random doesn't mean "anything can happen" or "nothing can be predicted". It can be used to model something that is deterministic, but not worth the effort to determine, or something that is not determined. But it may be very constrained. Something may be random, but within a very small range. And they may be very well described by know distributions - as is the case for coin tosses and nuclear decays.


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

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to