On 4/26/2011 12:50 PM, John Mikes wrote:
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).

One would hope so, although our knowledge may go to zero along with out numbers in less than 1000yrs.

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?

I'm surprised you would appeal to "conventional sciences" since you express such agnosticism about their validity. There was no prior, deterministic law dictating the decay of radioactive nuclei or the chemical reaction of two molecules. But they were thought to obey stochastic laws that defined the probabilities of different possible events. Quantum mechanics proved capable of calculating these stochastic laws from more fundamental variables. The same QM predicts that some other events will occur with virtual certainty and some not at all; and that's what restricts 'random'.

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.

I think that is the standard meaning.

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.

Certainly deterministic does not imply predictable. Even if we possess a deterministic law, our ability to predict is limited by our knowledge of initial states and our ability to calculate.

The PHYSICAL WORLD is a nice figment and we can live with it for now.

But how can you know that unless you know the reality of which it's a figment?

Brent

--
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