But the trouble is that controlled experiments are our gold standard for
testing such. Control is the default. It seems like at least confirmation bias.
Of course control demonstrates determinism. It's petitio principii. In order to
demonstrate a counter exmaple, we have to control everything we could possibly
*ever* control, being left with only that we can't control ... like proving a
negative.
In that context, those of us who believe there exists some thing we can't
control act a bit like theists. Whenever they manage to concretely define the
process they claim is uncontrollable, we demonstrate it's controllability. Then
they move the goalposts and we start all over again. It's tiresome and even if
we want to be charitable, allowing that maybe there's something uncontrollable
out there (or there is something we might call God), at every turn, as soon as
it's defined concretely, it's eventually falsified. That leads some of us to
tire out, give up, and just flip the faith and assume there is no
uncontrollable thing.
On 6/13/24 19:13, Marcus Daniels wrote:
What’s odd is this idea there is something about nature that can’t be
described in a repeatable way, such that a digital computer could simulate it,
in principle. Paradoxically, to defend that idea, one would have to describe
an experiment that could illustrate counter examples -- concepts that could not
be said. It is obfuscation by construction.
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
