Marcus wrote:
The double slit experiment demonstrates what appears to be nondeterminism, but
that hasn't prevented development of an accurate model of the phenomena that
deterministic computers can simulate. I don't have to believe a deterministic
interpretation of the double slit experiment, but Occam's Razor encourages me
to. (I can't control the initial conditions of the universe.) What is the
point of discussions about things that cannot be modeled?
Some modeling is explanatory, other is exploratory. Modeling is a
high-order mode of "discussion".... building and testing hypotheses in
an abstract space where (most?) human minds are unable to rigorously
keep track of all the details of the "discussion", but instead defer to
a mechanical device and process which manages all that for us in a
manner we believe we can understand (a given computational/simulation
method and framework)?
These discussions belong in a church. They are not inquiry.
What is FriAM if not a church whose main sermons reflect various
inquiries built on top of the entire(many overlapping subsets actually)
canon math/science and for some philosophy, semiotics, linguistics?
On Jun 14, 2024, at 6:20 AM, glen <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Beating (probably poorly) the dead horse-hide drum of "assembly theory"
following Sara Walker's rhythmic patterns (poorly)... I don't think
the issue is "controllable" vs not really... except in the sense of "not
yet understood or expressed consistently by nature fully enough"?
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/
