williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/06/84)
Allow me to thank you in advance for responding. >Although I don't understand dec-kirk!williams' any of >dec-kirk!williams' second paragraph, starting ``The observation >that certain things preceed [sic] others is easily proved.'', I >would still like to comment on his example. That is, ``When I drop >a dish, I am capable of detecting the amount of time it takes for >the dish to fall to the ground and change states.'' I do not have any objections to relating systems theory to philosophy. What I was stating is that there is a fundamental limit to the propagation of events. This is the structure of time. Things do not happen instantaneously except in the simplified models of reality that you construct in your mind. This is for good reason. Understanding must imply a simplification. To say that an event, or number of events, happen instantaneously, is comparable to saying that during the time slot that you have defined, all events occur within. This should be admittedly a simplication leading to the resolution of a problem. Simultaneous events do not exist anywhere except in your imagination. This is a tool, a device, an aid to survival. >-- First, we appear to be granting the existence of things called >dishes, and even more, that we know of such existence, when such assumptions >are anthema to many philosophers ... but let that pass. Again, a tool. Something we have brought to reality. Something that has been defined as a tool in eating. Much in the same way that time slots are a tool in thinking. They do not exist except in the context that we use them. >-- Second, the phrase ``capable of detecting the amount of the >time'' is very confusing. How does one detect time? What sort of >units is it measured in? {I don't have a builtin dectector that tells me >``n seconds have elapsed'', and, in any sense beyond that of a >stopwatch, I have no concept of second, minutes, what have you.} >Do you just mean that ``before'' we had something, and ``now'' we >have something else? We have defined a reference of time which is measured primarily in seconds. We have instruments which are capable of measuring time more accurately than we can, but it is still measurable to a limited degree of precision. This reference, seconds, is a unit ( or slot ) of time that serves as a means of confirming experience. It establishes a quantitization which allows me to express my observations and ideas in a way which is not easily disputed. >-- Finally, what do you mean by the dish changing ``states''? If >you mean it breaks, then I wish you'd say so. If you don't, please >explain what it is you do mean. I left that implicit. To be explicit, I meant that the dish goes from being a conventional dish to a broken one. >Then Mr. Williams goes into something about being able to predict >with certainty that the dish will always break if I drop it from >a sufficient height. I admit dishes usually break when they're >dropped, but without some reasoning, the inductive step from >``Umpteen dishes have broken before'' to ``The next dish I drop >will break'' is unjustified. If you have defined for yourself that "will" means that there will be absolutely no exceptions, then you are correct. If you have defined "will" as I have, then you understand that the probability of the dish breaking is so high, that neither you, nor anyone else has seen an exception. Much the same way that 1 and .999999999999999999... are just different ways of looking at the same thing. >Next paragraph. Mr. Williams: ``My limitation of awareness >excludes my perception of the future.'' What about people who can >successfully predict the lottery or go on a gambling streak? {No, >I have no documented cases at my fingertips, but I know some >people who have won lots of money in a short time, and Ayer >devotes substantial thought to just these cases, so I hope they're >not unheard of.'' > Also, what does ``limitation of awareness'' mean? What is >``awareness'', anyway? I glad you chose a good example. These people you refer to have noticed statistical patterns, and their success implies a deep understanding of the infrastructure of those mechanisms. > A couple sentences later, ``my experience is a sample of >reality.'' Memory is notoriously imperfect, as Mr. Williams points >out. I don't understand how the above statement follows from the >fact that we have memories. Just that sampling requires a means of storage, hence, memory. > ``My free will determines what choice...'' Huh? Free will >determines? Deterministic approaches are the choosing from a group of finite alternatives. When you make a decision, you are choosing from a select group of options. What your options are depend on what you take into account. Free will is the concept that you are free to make decisions based on anything you consider important. >Next paragraph. ``We recognize the existence of both cause and >effect, AND free will.'' Where is cause and effect and free will >that they have existence? What do you mean by existence? How do >we recognize them, assuming they do exist? In your imagination, as a means of expressing long term phenomena and how it may relate to understanding particular events. >From there to the end, I could again make no sense out of the >words. I felt like I was reading Jabberwocky. It seems much of Mr. >Williams' articles relies on terms that have not been defined, and >are being used as if we all knew what we meant. Perhaps you could >elucidate? If you are comparing me to Lewis Carroll, I am indeed flattered. You'll just have to continue reading if you want to appreciate what is inside.