> [Ham] > I can't speak for Platt, but I have no problem with cause-and-effect as it > applies to natural process. Existential reality is intellectualized as a > causal system because it is experienced as a temporal process. We have to > deal with it in the empirical context in which it is revealed to us. In > order to control our environment and shape it to our needs, Science has > given us an understanding of the operative forces responsible for observed > changes and the means to predict events within a fair degree of reliability. > > I'm not well-versed on quantum mechanics, but I don't see that probability > has replaced Newtonian causality. Indeed, the "relative likelihood" of > specific events is directly related to our cause-and-effect comprehension of > these forces. > > [Krimel] > You are speaking from a point of view that was abandoned at least 50 years > ago. Until you update your thinking you will continue to be lost. At its > peak Newtonian thinking spoke of cause and effects a relationship of events > that could be predicted with 100 percent probability. This is not how things > work.
[Platt] Seems to work pretty well in everyday life. It always amazes me that they can land the shuttle with pinpoint accuracy. Besides, I'd say there is a 100 percent probability that apples will not fall from trees up. > [Ham] > I'm not as comfortable with scientific explanations of what is blithely > called "Social Darwinism", as I don't believe cognizant organisms are > restricted to cause-and-effect behavior. The migration of people across > territorial boundaries, and their decision to replace agrarian culture with > industrial production are not causal changes in the scientific sense, nor > are they statistical probabilities. I don't think you can explain the > colonists' decision to form an independent nation governed by consent of > free people as a cause-and-effect social phenomenon. Such events are > rational choices based on man's ingenuity and the desire to enhance the > quality of his life-experience. > > [Krimel] > Nothing in what I said refers to Social Darwinism nor was I talking about > human populations. These comments clearly show your failure to comprehend > the probabilistic notion of causality and human nature. Whatever we are, we > are certainly not acausal creatures. Our behavior individually and > collectively is determined by the interaction of our biology, our past > experiences and the current environment. [Platt] Unpredictable responses to DQ as exemplified in the brujo story don't fit a deterministic worldview. > [Krimel]: > > To the extent that science is impotent in handling significant singular > > events; it is not unique. At least science can aim to study the effects > > and offer up something besides random speculation. > > [Ham] > We have no disagreement on that score. Again, we can't fault Science for > defining the universe as the "emergent system" we experience. At the same > time, to assume that experiential reality brings itself into existence > spontaneously from nothingness has about as much logic as the Munchausen > notion that a man can lift himself up by his bootstraps. > > [Krimel] > I think my point is that science acknowledges frankly that chance and > uncertainty play an inherent role in any kind of understanding. They are > interwoven into the fabric of the universe. When it comes to the Big Bang, > which I assume is the singular event in question, it really is understood as > a best guess. What have you got to offer as an alternative, your phantom > essence that leaves no trace? [Platt] "Chance" is no better explanation for a singular event than "miracle." Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
