I am sure you write very smart things. I am not so familiar with the letters used as abbreviations (wf, DM and more) so I just listen to the music. One thing though I am sure:
all you include is included within our yesterdays knowledge-base what is for sure *more* than the knowledge base way back *before yesterday* - and *LESS than it will be tomorrow* (or say 1000 years from now). I formulate my 'opinions' (oh, not arguments, for heaven's sake) in my agnosticism about such adages in the future invalidating some "nice and acceptable" TRUTH we pamper in our present thinking. If there is 'random' in your worldview, how is it restricted in a way not to interfere with those "LAWS" conventional sciences formulated before such random changes occurred? Also: it may be my imperfection in my vocabulary, but erasing 'random' - making every change in relations based on some 'originating' factor - shows a *DETERMINISTIC* and not some indeterministic view. We may not clearly identify all those originating factors (e.g. in the so far not detected parts of the totality), but so works my agnosticism. The PHYSICAL WORLD is a nice figment and we can live with it for now. John On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:50 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 4/25/2011 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > 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. > > > This is a consequence of the no-cloning theorem, which in turn is a > consequence of unitary evolution of the wf. It is curious that the > deterministic process at the wf level implies randomness at the level of > conscious experience. > > Brent > > > With comp, determinism entaills first person and first person plural > intrinsic randomness existence. > > Bruno > > > -- > 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.
