--- Stathis Papaioannou
<stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
among others:
*
"> I understood Tom's phrase "atomic parts" as meaning
> "component parts" rather
> than literally what scientists call "atoms"....<
fine, I used Tom's word. It went to a nice extreme.
*
Then about 'rules':
> It was deliberately left vague: the "rules" are not
> necessarily the rules of
> present day science, but the rules of any possible
> future science, or, as
> you suggest, the rules known by an omniscient
being.<
Are you still talking about 'rules' reduced (!) to the
limited model view they pertain to (=reductionistic)
or do you imply the untellable 'rules' of the
tota;ity? In that case I don't know how to valuate any
'rules'. The 'omniscient being' would 'know' that
detailed rules are off. In everything interefficient
to everything incl. those 'trends' we consider parts
within the model, (a definitely reductionist view)
forming continually in the ceaseless change of the
wholeness. It's above me!
*
And warm thanks for your consent:
> Yes, this is just what I meant: the truly random is
> beyond *any* rules,
> including ones not yet discovered. Otherwise, it
> would not be truly random.<
(I find 'untruly random' similar to 'just a bit
pregnant').
*
from the truncated message:
> John M writes:
>
> > > Tom Caylor writes:
> > >
> > > >1) The reductionist definition that something
> is determined by the
> > > >sum of atomic parts and rules.
> > >
> > > So how about this: EITHER something is
> determined by
> > > the sum of atomic parts
> > > and rules OR it is truly random.
> >
> >"Sum of atomic parts"? I am not sure about the
> figment
> > based on primitive observations and on then
> >applicable explanatory calculative conclusions
> within
> >the narrow model of the ancient scientist's views,
> >called "atom".
skip
>
> >Same with chaos: we just did not (yet?) learn that
> >kind of processes in the wide world existence that
> >would result in our "chaos"- called process. (Like
> >random.)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. In principle, a
> chaotic process could
> follow very simple and well-understood rules. The
> difficulty is that a
> future state of a chaotic system may be so
> sensitively dependent on initial
> conditions that it is impossible to measure these
> conditions to the
> requisite level of accuracy. The limitation is
> practical, not theoretical.
And how do you think to evaluate ALL initial
conditions in a wide world where everything is
interconnected and intereffective? Practically (not
theoretically <G> you cannot, so chaotic comes in in
practice. Please, do not mix up the 'concept' with the
limited science of the physical chaologists who
restricted their conclusions to handpicked cases where
(their) explanations may apply. Gleick's excellent
journalism impressed even the most 'scientific' minds.
He made the untellable clearly statable. His stupid
butterfly still haunts the minds.
....
> >
> >Make yourself a god that could figure it all out.
>
> But the point is that it is *impossible* even in
> theory - even for an
> omniscient being - to figure it out. If I undergo
> destructive teleportation
> and two exact copies emerge in two separate
> locations, A and B, can I expect
> to find myself at A or at B?
Let me refrain from remarking on that stupid
teleportation hoax in honor for the esteemed
listmembers. Your question rewords into: Is the cat
dead or alive? Physics is a nice limited model
formulated over the past ~10 millennia, to explain in
its own rite whatever was thought to be observed. Then
QM made it into a linear way of thinking accepting
some of the paradoxes arising within the model
'physics'. I for one do not find QM more wholistic
than St. Physix herself, in the contrary. It extends
into limited models even the 'concepts' left uncut in
physics (eg. particles galore).
The Cavalcanti problem is part of the 'game'. Part of
the term 'thought experiment' as I wrote yesterday to
Bruno. Star Trek or Harry Potter.
I am an old man, do not have time for such fantasy -
games. I hope to find something more reasonable.
Thanks, Stathis,
John M
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
=== message truncated ===
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Apr 11 2006 - 15:52:29 PDT