Russel wrote: *Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will*.
then: *My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos**Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting* . The term 'nondeterministic' (leading to 'random?') is a nono in my views (and I do not argue for their correctness, only for their LIMITED agnostic nature). *Relations* (what are they?) influence each other, I think so does the Laplace daemon (I never met this guy) so in the churnings of the existence (Nature?) nothing comes un-influenced (randomly, or in a CHAOTIC un-ruliness). I consider chaos the outcome of *orderly* influences including (our) unknown - even (for us) unknowable factors in the 'Everything' (Nature, whatever). Furthermore: if chaos is ubiquitous, or: if random prevails unrestrained, we would have no math-phys laws to observe (consider 2+2=375, or 56831) and e.g. Ohm's law would be unfollowable etc. etc. etc. So far I did not meet an acceptable regulation about WHERE does the potential of random, or chaos prevail and WHERE not? It cannot be a convenience rule, like: "it exists there, and ONLY there, where we like it and it does not disturb our natural sciences/mathematics etc. " A 'deterministic setting' IMO is the outcome of sometimes controversial trends from diverse influencing tendencies - ALL OF THEM (known and unknown). Whatever 'emerges' is entailed by some origins and influences and it is only our ignorance that calls it 'random', 'chaos', or 'nondeterministic change' etc. etc. In many cases we cannot predict what will happen, because our insight is limited. 'Free will' is a good cop-out, the gods can even punish the 'willer'. Regards John Mikes On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:06:57PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > > Russell: > > you wrote (among many many others): > > > > *"...No free will = deterministic behaviour..." * > > > > I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known > as > > Quite right. I should have written "No free will <= deterministic > behaviour." > > (<= means "entailed by", not ≤). > > Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. > > My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos > Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic > setting. > > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
