[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.
[Craig] 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 of using dice or coin tosses as examples is that they simplify the number of variables and possible outcome. Your examples are actually making my point by introducing increasingly complex system, i.e. travel decisions and stampedes. [Craig] But there is a single chain of causality that leads to the ACTUAL outcome. [Krimel] How can you possibly see a single chain of causality in a cattle stampede. [Craig] How do you distinguish between "lots of chains converging in the present" & lots of partial descriptions of the single chain leading to the present? [Krimel] Determining what events we are concerned with to begin with is a bit arbitrary. Even with tossing dice we elect to look at which spots come up on top. What is instead we looked at the die's orientation to true north or the number of times is bounces before coming to rest. When we attempt to specify causality, we look for properties that are most likely to influence our outcome. We look for properties that are constant like the force of gravity and which forces are variable like the force of the throw. When the number of variable is sufficiently large enough their interactions yield indeterminacy. We know for example that even with something as simple of planets in orbit chaos ensues when instead of two orbiting bodies we introduce three. > [Krimel] > 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. [Craig] 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. [Krimel] You are espousing a view expressed by Laplace as a mid 19th century euphoria and optimism over the success of Newtonian physics. It just turns out to be wrong. In fairness to Laplace, who helped found mathematical probability theory, it is unlikely that he actually believe we could acquire the degree of knowledge needed. What we have found is that much of the knowledge needed can not be determined even in principle. It is not just insufficient knowledge or lack of ability to obtain the knowledge. As for how our knowledge of probabilities can change outcomes; what would you say is the probability of dirt assembling itself into bricks and bricks assembling themselves into houses? It is our ability to see patterns of probability that defines us. 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/
