Peter,
if we 'free-up' our minds to think wider than our conventional sciences
based 'unconventionality' (as applied on this list frequently) and recognize
the unlimited Everything in the complexity of the wholeness we end up in
(my?) agnosticism:
We know only part of the total, visualize WITHIN our mind-restricted imaging
and formulate 'models' of the already known world (already: because it
widened by newer input historically as we 'learn'). The totality's inter
influenceing results in changing relations - partly followable -
acknowledged by the part of our 'then' knowledge.
In such view Random is I don't know, Chaos is: I don't know and
stochastic is sort of a random. What conventional science does is a
compromise into the almost: our technology is almost perfect, some
planes fall off from the sky, some sicknesses/wars break out, some genetic
mishaps occur, some theories fail, etc. etc. Compromising means to invent
cute factors that enhance a match (at least mathematically) in cases of
trouble. Presumptions make assumptions and vice versa, in endless series and
at the end it is believed as a fact.
Deterministic? there is SOME order that keeps the world churning, applying
ALL relational changes in the wholeness including ALL ingredients of the
Everything. We don't know what
are such 'ingredients' only the imagined 'model-substitutions' we use in our
limited knowledge.
We don't know what kind of alterations the relations in the unlimited
totality may undergo, we
only experience SOME and interpret them within our figment (physical world).
Presumably -
and now I use this word as well G - there is an order in the wholeness and
this encompasses all the totality in the alterations of the relationships -
so I feel justified to use
the word 'deterministic'. Not to understand it, though. In limbo - you
say: be my guest.
We cannot overstep our capabilities and think only within our models. By
human logic, which has no claim to be the general characteristic of nature
(the totality). We think human. Me, too.
A bit stepping further seems to be allowed in 'anticipation' what I just
study how to get to it,
on the bases of Robert Rosen and Mihai Nadin. I am not there yet.
Rules, mathematical formula, quantum science, physics, other conventional
sciences: all
figments of the human mind how to explain the partial phenomena we
'accepted' over the time of our existence here on Earth.
One more obstacle: users of different vocabularies cannot effectively argue
with each other,
the meaning of the words is different. Bruno has a vocabulary, conventional
sciences use another one, my concepts are differently identified, religions
have their own versions, every
one understands arguments within their own vocabulary - the rest is
'stupid'.
Regards
John
n Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:33 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:53 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
IZ wrote:
*Even stochastic rules? Science can easily explain how the appearance
of order emerges from randomness*.
'Stochastic is no more than not assignable to our KNOWN rules of choice.
It's still rules. If there are no known rules BECAUSE the actual rules
out there
are not deterministic, science can still function with the sort of
rules it still
functions with. In you previous comment, ou sounded like you were
deriving the conclusion everything
is deterministic from the premise science works on rules, and that
does not
in fact follow. Now you seem to be deriving everything is
deterministic from itself.
This is a natural outcome within the view I discribed.
And the 'order' tha '*emerges'* from randomness? maybe it is only a
mathematical formula - just describing the experience,
Maybe a deterministic law is just a mathematical formula. The point
is
whether we should have respect for the fact that these things work,
and whether we should do so in a biased or an even-handed way.
The determinist is impressed by Newton's deterministic laws,and happy
to reify them,
but not by the Law of Large Numbers, which shows how apparent
order can emerge from chaos. Yet both work. So it looks like
the determinist is running on bias.
*or *- by additional
input - the missing part that 'made' the randomness in the first place,
dissipates by our knowledge being expanded (enriched).
I appreciate ONE true randomness (in math): Take ANY number...
(puzzles).
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 19, 9:39 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
*Brent wrote:*
**
*I would point out that indeterminism can have two different
sources.
One is internal, due to the occasional quantum random event that gets
amplified to quasi-classical action. The other, much more common, is
the
unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic) external event that
influences
one through perception. I don't think this affects the above
analysis
except to qualify the idea that
