mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/20/85)
In article <1509@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >If at all. I don't know where you get my "insistance on pure determinism". >What I insist on is a little rigorous thinking, not "well this isn't true, >this bit about determinism, so surely MY idea that I like so much must >be true". Perhaps you are wishfully thinking that I am wishfully thinking? For crying out loud, Rich, that's my whole argument!!!! We are not scientifically in a position to decide the question. And besides, would you deny the following passage? >>>Yes, indeed, plenty of >>>human behavior APPEARS to be random, Charley. Plenty of lots of things >>>APPEAR to be random, but on closer examination, we find something holding >>>it together. A bit more complex than some people who prefer one-sentence >>>explanations for things ("God did it!"), but perhaps they're just too lazy >>>to examine things in that dreaded "scientific" way. One look at the >>>universe, one careful look, will show you how many "random" things >>>really have very simple physical processes at their root, complexly >>>interweaving with each other to give the illusion of "randomness" to >>>the casual observer. You call THAT rigor? Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/24/85)
> For crying out loud, Rich, that's my whole argument!!!! We are not > scientifically in a position to decide the question. And besides, would you > deny the following passage? > > >>>Yes, indeed, plenty of > >>>human behavior APPEARS to be random, Charley. Plenty of lots of things > >>>APPEAR to be random, but on closer examination, we find something holding > >>>it together. A bit more complex than some people who prefer one-sentence > >>>explanations for things ("God did it!"), but perhaps they're just too lazy > >>>to examine things in that dreaded "scientific" way. One look at the > >>>universe, one careful look, will show you how many "random" things > >>>really have very simple physical processes at their root, complexly > >>>interweaving with each other to give the illusion of "randomness" to > >>>the casual observer. > > You call THAT rigor? [WINGATE] I don't think I'll deny what I wrote myself. Yes, I call this rigorous. Very much so. Especially when compared to "We don't understand it, so rather than examining it further, let's make up a model that conforms to the way we want the world to be regardless of whatever is found". -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr