On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:45:10 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On 13/03/2013, at 4:53 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
>
> > We're talking about the basic principle of determinism though. We should 
> use a basic example of it. What special ingredient does complexity add 
> which changes the nature of determinism? One stone rolling or a trillion 
> digital stones rolling and colliding and sticking together and breaking 
> apart - what difference does it make to the ontology of determinism? 
>
> If you can't demonstrate that one carbon atom is intelligent or conscious 
> does that mean that trillions of them together can't be either?


If your model of physics doesn't include intelligence then it can't 
interpret any behaviors as intelligent or conscious. Determinism is not 
even physics, it is an ideology based on the behaviors of objects. The 
problem with it is that rather than making the obvious discovery that no 
amount of pure objects equals a subject, it tries to insert some cloud of 
endless possibilities in between one object and many objects which obscures 
the obvious. If trillions of something make a subject, then you have to 
explain why that should be the case - what deterministic purpose does the 
subject serve, how does it come to be even a possibility if it serves no 
purpose, etc. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to