# Re: Determinism

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:00:55 +0000

"John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden> on 15/01/2004 20:17:49

Please respond to "John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>

From: "John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>

To: "Norman Samish" <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>, "Doug Porpora"
cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Subject: Re: Determinism

Hi all,

I'm trying to catch up the issues discussed, but it is becoming almost
impossible. That's why I'm commenting this mail almost 6 days late.

About what you wrote Norman, I don't disagree. Physical Man is a sum of
physical states and events that can be detected and measured. If applied to
all Man will find out that the results will be the same. The difference
between each individual is meaningless at the atom level, quantum-state
level, etc. But when you start to logically "group" all of those "physical
definitions", you'll start to get different results. For example, in a so
low level state you can't see the difference bewteen "Thought" and "body".
They are all electrical manifestations. When gathering all the small
"pieces", you start to have a more high level view of the individual. The
"Thought" and "body" become distinct from each other. If we try only to
explain each piece of the puzzle individually, we will have interesting
mathematical formulations and theorys, but unusefull to identify the
"individual" completely. When we start to "build" the puzzle bit by bit,
we'll find out that the relations between each piece have something more to
add to the mathematical formula of "life". Maybe in a higher level,
different "blocks" of the puzzle have a common meaning for all individuals
and can be used as "base units" to continue building the puzzle,
diminishing the level of complexity.

In one thing I agree: the start must be on the atom level, quantum-state,
etc.
What do you all think of this approach?

>Also, I'm unable to find a meaningful (to me) argument against
>reductionism. Why is it in trouble? It seems to me that even a complex
>human being can be defined in concept by discrete quantum states and
>particles, atoms and electrical charges. "Thoughts" are therefore NOT
>infinite because they can be conceptually defined in terms of particles
and
>quantum states, and there are not an infinite number of these
permutations.<

>My take on reductionism is the "snapshot style" (in maybe wider sense than
>just visual) - considering boundaries for our observation (thinking) and
>establishing a model of the 'observed' target WITHIN them.
>In the sense of unlimited interconnection (and a/effecting), such view
cuts
>off
>connotations beyond said boundaries (be it Q-state, particles, cinsidered
>permutations, atoms, electrical charges or whatever is one's beef). It is
a
>limited view (model) perfectly applicable for computations. Yet: limited.

>My trend in thoinking (in the newly (just emerging) 'wholistic'
complexity)
>is the unlimited connectivity - not that I claim to successfully apply it.
>We all DO think in reductionistic ways - the only way our mind works
without
>implying (mystical?) infinity - so I cannot belittle your opinion.

>I wonder if Doug thinks in the same lines as I do?

*********************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and / or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, the use of this information or any disclosure,
copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.