alternative response
Locked
 
|
Glen said:
> Exactly! If humans have free will, we can program a machine to have it > too (someday, anyway). And since we don't know how to *construct* free > will and the evidence against it is accumulating, it's reasonable to > claim it doesn't exist and the burden is increasingly on those who > believe in it to make their case. It feels like we are engaging in self-negating discourse when we speak in this way? "I assert there is no such thing as free will, and now I will prove/demonstrate that and if you are not too stubborn, you too will come to agree with me on this" I'm not attacking Glen (or his specific phrasing above), just calling it out as an example of what runs through the whole discussion (including the one running in my own head and never making it to the list). - Steve - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Steve: Is this self-negating discourse A term of art in some conversation? The only self I can see being negated is a “meta-self”. N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- Glen said: > Exactly! If humans have free will, we can program a machine to have it > too (someday, anyway). And since we don't know how to *construct* free > will and the evidence against it is accumulating, it's reasonable to > claim it doesn't exist and the burden is increasingly on those who > believe in it to make their case. It feels like we are engaging in self-negating discourse when we speak in this way? "I assert there is no such thing as free will, and now I will prove/demonstrate that and if you are not too stubborn, you too will come to agree with me on this" I'm not attacking Glen (or his specific phrasing above), just calling it out as an example of what runs through the whole discussion (including the one running in my own head and never making it to the list). - Steve - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Is the question whether it was "pre-determined?" Or is the question whether
it was predetermined by Charles?? I have a neighbor who passes my study window every afternoon at 4pm with his very floppy cocker spaniel. Is that event predetermined by the dog (who begs to go out at 3.30), by Scott (who welcomes the distraction), by the clock (which he checks to keep the dog honest), or .... I know this because I used to set out for coffee every afternoon at that time, and we would often meet on my doorstep and walk together a few paces down the street. Because of COVID I don't do that any more. Did COVID determine my change of behavior? Or did I make a FREE choice. I think the freedom of free will is just an ideological matter. Each of us is supposed to be a master of our behavior and circumstances. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, you can be popped in the loony-bin for not being so. In which case, I think, the loony bin is where we all belong. Or perhaps are? Anyway, Glen will accuse me of strawmanning again. Forgive me. I have been tortured by dualists all my life, and now I am visiting my revengte on all of you. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:38 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response An attempt to steelman via wingman: The idea that Glen is proposing is to highlight a sweet spot in one's experience where unfamiliarity competes with habit. Glen advocates for bracketing questions of a prime mover or that which happens in pathological limits. Instead, he wishes to constrain the scope of free will to a question of free versus bound with respect to some arbitrary component/scale/neighborhood (the free will zone). I will try not to fight this as I still think of this interpretation of *free will* as being a discussion of will, determined or not. For instance, I may be willful and determined. The value I see in Glen's perspective is that we can develop a grammar for discussing deliberate action, perhaps involving a Bayesian update rule to an otherwise evaporative memory or local foresight. He is advocating to not concern ourselves with whether or not Charles Bukowski was *predestined* to be a drunk, but rather with determining where the *choice* to do otherwise may have been. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Well, this conversation has changed my opinion of you, Nick. Now I think of you as a sloppy housekeeper. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 3:59 PM <[hidden email]> wrote: Is the question whether it was "pre-determined?" Or is the question whether - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
I think you'd be better off if you tossed out the word "pre-determined" entirely. And maybe even "determined". Just don't use those concepts. The problem with those concepts is that they hide a time transient (as well as other scopes ... like a light cone). If you simply stop using that concept and *then* try to ask what you want to ask, I think you'll find a much better formulation of the question.
On 6/16/20 2:58 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Is the question whether it was "pre-determined?" Or is the question whether > it was predetermined by Charles?? I have a neighbor who passes my study > window every afternoon at 4pm with his very floppy cocker spaniel. Is that > event predetermined by the dog (who begs to go out at 3.30), by Scott (who > welcomes the distraction), by the clock (which he checks to keep the dog > honest), or .... > > I know this because I used to set out for coffee every afternoon at that > time, and we would often meet on my doorstep and walk together a few paces > down the street. Because of COVID I don't do that any more. Did COVID > determine my change of behavior? Or did I make a FREE choice. > > I think the freedom of free will is just an ideological matter. Each of us > is supposed to be a master of our behavior and circumstances. Indeed, in > some jurisdictions, you can be popped in the loony-bin for not being so. In > which case, I think, the loony bin is where we all belong. Or perhaps are? > > Anyway, Glen will accuse me of strawmanning again. Forgive me. I have been > tortured by dualists all my life, and now I am visiting my revengte on all > of you. -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I would say "able" instead of "not too stubborn". We can only do what we are equipped to do, and do what we develop to do.
On 6/16/20, 2:42 PM, "Friam on behalf of Steve Smith" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Glen said: > Exactly! If humans have free will, we can program a machine to have it > too (someday, anyway). And since we don't know how to *construct* free > will and the evidence against it is accumulating, it's reasonable to > claim it doesn't exist and the burden is increasingly on those who > believe in it to make their case. It feels like we are engaging in self-negating discourse when we speak in this way? "I assert there is no such thing as free will, and now I will prove/demonstrate that and if you are not too stubborn, you too will come to agree with me on this" I'm not attacking Glen (or his specific phrasing above), just calling it out as an example of what runs through the whole discussion (including the one running in my own head and never making it to the list). - Steve - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I don't think so. I *attempted* to lay out a structure that would help us refine the question away from fuzzy concepts like "free will" into more concrete concepts like pattern recognition, truncation error, etc. And even if you work within the bounds I set, you can still argue *either* way, for or against free will.
So, I'm not trying to set anything up to self-fulfill as a failure. Those who believe in free will have a duty to demonstrate it with a constructive proof. That's all I'm saying below. In many ways, the more *falsifications* we have of candidate hypotheses, the *easier* it will be to (eventually) construct that proof. To read falsificationism as self-negating is a mistake, I think. Failure is a Good Thing. It's the only way we learn. On 6/16/20 2:42 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Glen said: >> Exactly! If humans have free will, we can program a machine to have it >> too (someday, anyway). And since we don't know how to *construct* free >> will and the evidence against it is accumulating, it's reasonable to >> claim it doesn't exist and the burden is increasingly on those who >> believe in it to make their case. > > It feels like we are engaging in self-negating discourse when we speak > in this way? > > "I assert there is no such thing as free will, and now I will > prove/demonstrate that and if you are not too stubborn, you too will > come to agree with me on this" > > I'm not attacking Glen (or his specific phrasing above), just calling it > out as an example of what runs through the whole discussion (including > the one running in my own head and never making it to the list). -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Oh, come on frank. I am sure you knew that before. N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Well, this conversation has changed my opinion of you, Nick. Now I think of you as a sloppy housekeeper. --- On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 3:59 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Hmmmm! "because of"?
n Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 4:10 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response I think you'd be better off if you tossed out the word "pre-determined" entirely. And maybe even "determined". Just don't use those concepts. The problem with those concepts is that they hide a time transient (as well as other scopes ... like a light cone). If you simply stop using that concept and *then* try to ask what you want to ask, I think you'll find a much better formulation of the question. On 6/16/20 2:58 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Is the question whether it was "pre-determined?" Or is the question whether > it was predetermined by Charles?? I have a neighbor who passes my study > window every afternoon at 4pm with his very floppy cocker spaniel. Is > that event predetermined by the dog (who begs to go out at 3.30), by > Scott (who welcomes the distraction), by the clock (which he checks to > keep the dog honest), or .... > > I know this because I used to set out for coffee every afternoon at > that time, and we would often meet on my doorstep and walk together a > few paces down the street. Because of COVID I don't do that any more. > Did COVID determine my change of behavior? Or did I make a FREE choice. > > I think the freedom of free will is just an ideological matter. Each > of us is supposed to be a master of our behavior and circumstances. > Indeed, in some jurisdictions, you can be popped in the loony-bin for > not being so. In which case, I think, the loony bin is where we all belong. Or perhaps are? > > Anyway, Glen will accuse me of strawmanning again. Forgive me. I > have been tortured by dualists all my life, and now I am visiting my > revengte on all of you. -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I don't think we can ever set up such a test until we have come to an agreement concerning what free will is freedom FROM.
N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? u?l? Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 4:27 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response I don't think so. I *attempted* to lay out a structure that would help us refine the question away from fuzzy concepts like "free will" into more concrete concepts like pattern recognition, truncation error, etc. And even if you work within the bounds I set, you can still argue *either* way, for or against free will. So, I'm not trying to set anything up to self-fulfill as a failure. Those who believe in free will have a duty to demonstrate it with a constructive proof. That's all I'm saying below. In many ways, the more *falsifications* we have of candidate hypotheses, the *easier* it will be to (eventually) construct that proof. To read falsificationism as self-negating is a mistake, I think. Failure is a Good Thing. It's the only way we learn. On 6/16/20 2:42 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Glen said: >> Exactly! If humans have free will, we can program a machine to have >> it too (someday, anyway). And since we don't know how to *construct* >> free will and the evidence against it is accumulating, it's >> reasonable to claim it doesn't exist and the burden is increasingly >> on those who believe in it to make their case. > > It feels like we are engaging in self-negating discourse when we speak > in this way? > > "I assert there is no such thing as free will, and now I will > prove/demonstrate that and if you are not too stubborn, you too will > come to agree with me on this" > > I'm not attacking Glen (or his specific phrasing above), just calling > it out as an example of what runs through the whole discussion > (including the one running in my own head and never making it to the list). -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
I already answered this! >8^D It is freedom from the other branches not taken (or perhaps freedom from a repetition of the branch one did take). The freedom starts at 0, accumulates to some peak, then turns into slavery.
On 6/16/20 4:05 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > I don't think we can ever set up such a test until we have come to an agreement concerning what free will is freedom FROM. -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Thanks, Glen,
The following over simplification of your view is NOT meant as satire, only as clarification for my limited purposes: I am hiking on an E/ W knife-edge ridge, uncertain which route to take down. I take a step to the north, which encourages another, and so forth. I am freed of the tendency to descend down the S. side. One might call this "freed will." N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? u?l? Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:09 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response I already answered this! >8^D It is freedom from the other branches not taken (or perhaps freedom from a repetition of the branch one did take). The freedom starts at 0, accumulates to some peak, then turns into slavery. On 6/16/20 4:05 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > I don't think we can ever set up such a test until we have come to an agreement concerning what free will is freedom FROM. -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Well, not really. You'd have to take the hike multiple times for you to have exercised any of your freedoms. That's a key part of the construction I offered. The first time you take that *particular* hike and the first time you step either way, there is no freedom.
(Now, I included some scaffolding for arguing about whether or not you'd have freedom given a previous hike on a *different* ridge, or even the same ridge but 100 years apart.) On 6/16/20 4:17 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Thanks, Glen, > > The following over simplification of your view is NOT meant as satire, only as clarification for my limited purposes: > > I am hiking on an E/ W knife-edge ridge, uncertain which route to take down. I take a step to the north, which encourages another, and so forth. I am freed of the tendency to descend down the S. side. One might call this "freed will." -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Oh, Gosh. Ok. [sigh] Back to the old Steelmanning board.
N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? u?l? Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:23 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response Well, not really. You'd have to take the hike multiple times for you to have exercised any of your freedoms. That's a key part of the construction I offered. The first time you take that *particular* hike and the first time you step either way, there is no freedom. (Now, I included some scaffolding for arguing about whether or not you'd have freedom given a previous hike on a *different* ridge, or even the same ridge but 100 years apart.) On 6/16/20 4:17 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Thanks, Glen, > > The following over simplification of your view is NOT meant as satire, only as clarification for my limited purposes: > > I am hiking on an E/ W knife-edge ridge, uncertain which route to take down. I take a step to the north, which encourages another, and so forth. I am freed of the tendency to descend down the S. side. One might call this "freed will." -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
Putting on my determinist hat (which I usually wear), I would say that the event of the neighbor passing by your study was pre-determined by the forces established at the instant of the Big Bang. As is everything else. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:59 PM <[hidden email]> wrote: Is the question whether it was "pre-determined?" Or is the question whether - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Hi, Gary, So, am I right to guess that wearing that hat implies a position on the meaning of the word, “random”? How does that go? Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Gary Schiltz Putting on my determinist hat (which I usually wear), I would say that the event of the neighbor passing by your study was pre-determined by the forces established at the instant of the Big Bang. As is everything else. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:59 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
If I understand correctly, random in the statistical sense, is just a distribution. Random, in the colloquial sense, does not exist. All state is all determined by physical laws. That’s of course without regard to quantum mechanics. But my beliefs about such things were forged before quantum theory had been invented, or at least before I had heard of it. It does now temper my beliefs with a healthy dose of uncertainty. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:16 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Hi, Gary, Now My Man Peirce was allergic to determinism. He liked to say that if the world was not as random as it could be, it was pretty damned close. When he said things like this, I think he was thinking about relations between events. Here’s a quick exposition of that point of view. Let experience be as random as it could possibly be; indeed, Peirce thinks that experience is approximately that random. Considering all the events that are going on at any one moment -- the ticking of the clock, the whuffing of the wind in the eaves, the drip of the faucet, the ringing of the telephone, the call from the seven-year-old upstairs who cannot find his shoes, the clunking in the heating pipes as the heat comes on, the distant sound of the fire engine passing the end of the street, the entry of the cat through the pet door, the skitter of mouse-feet behind the wainscoting -- most will be likely unrelated to the fact that the egg timer just went off. Perhaps not all, however. Perhaps the cat anticipates cleaning up the egg dishes. Perhaps the same stove that is boiling the egg water has lit a fire in the chimney. But whatever relations we might discover amongst all these events, we can find an infinite number of other temporally contiguous events that are not related to them. Thus, as Peirce says, events are just about as random as anybody could care them to be. I see that I have begged my own question of what randomness IS. But the rarity that any one event in the universe implies the occurance of any other. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Gary Schiltz If I understand correctly, random in the statistical sense, is just a distribution. Random, in the colloquial sense, does not exist. All state is all determined by physical laws. That’s of course without regard to quantum mechanics. But my beliefs about such things were forged before quantum theory had been invented, or at least before I had heard of it. It does now temper my beliefs with a healthy dose of uncertainty. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:16 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
I guess Your Man Pierce will never be mine :-) On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:59 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Consider a simulation of each of these different things in a discrete event simulator that uses a deterministic random number generator initialized by a single seed. The direction of the wind, or the water accumulating in the faucet,
or the particular calls that hour that came in for firefighters. In each run of the simulation it could all be different according to that seed, and show completely different behaviors individually and collectively. And yet it is all deterministic.
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> I guess Your Man Pierce will never be mine :-) On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:59 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |