On 9/6/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into them. I cannot
resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their
consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the continuation of anything?
They are justified by their success in prediction. "Random" doesn't mean "anything can
happen". In the successful theories the randomness is narrowly constrained and random
distributions are accurately predicted.
It all comes from my agnosticism: we know so little and don't knwo so much. Some newer
knowledge infiltrates our base - in adjusted format, of course, how our primitive
mindset of today can apply it - but our knowledge-base does grow.
That means my disregard for 'older' thoughts (e.g. of yesterday...).
I am on the basis of "I don't know".
In another line there was mention of statistical analysis.
*Statistics* is (IMO) a no-no, it is upon our arbitrary (present?) norderlines within
which we COUNT te appropriate items. As we gather new information the borderlines change
and our statistics becomes irrelevant.
It has been very successful in explaining thermodynamics by statistical
*Analytics*, however, is restricted to the (present?) inventory of structural etc. parts
in our (statistically applied?) system of a presently KNOWN composition. The real
results may be ingenious, but insufficient: restsricted to today's knowledge.
I leave my doubts on the 'anticipatory' for tomorrow.
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.