[Krimel] > it [doesn't] matter whether the dice as a whole "prefers", "chooses", > or "values" or whether [it] is the middle spot on the 3 face of the dice.
It's hard to make my point with dice, so I'll change the example again. Suppose on a cattle drive, the cowboys herd all the cattle into the corral except one who rebels & runs thru camp. That one has very little effect on what happens. But if the herd as a whole runs thru camp, while only one goes into the corral, you have a stampede. [Krimel] > The point I have been attempting to make is that there is no single chain > of causality that leads to a particular outcome. But there is a single chain of causality that leads to the ACTUAL outcome. [Krimel] > You are claiming that in the present a single chain of probability merges > into one. I am saying no, lots of chains converge in the present but there > is no single chain. How do you distinguish between "lots of chains converging in the present" & lots of partial descriptions of the single chain leading to the present? [Krimmel] > The world remains totally deterministic but outcomes can not be specified > precisely because it would take more computation power and time to > calculate the future than it would to just wait and see what happens. IMHO the reason "outcomes can not be specified precisely" is not because of lack of "computation power and time". Rather we not only lack much knowledge but also lack the knowledge of even how to obtain it. However, IMHO, probabilities do not depend upon knowledge. That is, the probability of an outcome generally does not change with our knowledge of the what leads to it. Craig 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/
