----- Original Message ----
> From: Harry Veeder <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thu, November 26, 2009 12:27:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Michel Jullian
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 6:02:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
> >
> > I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
> > was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM
> > that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
> > improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But
> > it doesn't leave room for free will either.
> >
> > Just this random machine's opinion ;-)
> >
> > Michel
> >
>
> A deterministic theory is not a problem as long as the theory is open to
> revision.
>
> Both mechanics and quantum mechanics suffer from _predeterminism_, because
> they
> have both been presented as the last word. When mechanics appeared on the
> scene
> the spirit had to accept that there was only one possible way for the
> universe
> to unfold. When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that
> there
> is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if this
> list
> is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be OFF the
> list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory!
>
> Harry
The moral of the story is this:
A TOE will turn into a curse unless it is open to revision.
Harry
__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/
