Hello, Chris. Thanks for your comments.
Marcio
> >I think there are two important points you guys are missing.
> >
> >First of all, I think that if we want to discuss something in scientific
> >terms we must stick to the scientific jargon regardless of how people
> >usually use a word. Otherwise we are comparing apples and oranges. Words
> >such as random, chaos and homology may cause problems like that. In this
> >sense, there is no association between the word "random" and the idea of
> >purpose. Curiously, some people commonly use random variables to achieve
> >the solution of optimization problems (e.g. Monte Carlo models).
> >
> >
> >Also, the distinction between "deterministic" and a "random" is not
> >necessarily true. Even though it is impossible to predict the outcome of a
> >single coin toss, if you toss it a sufficiently large number of times you
> >will get a frequency distribution (a probability distribution) that is
> >highly deterministic.
>
>
> Chris
> This is an interesting point, but you are not distinguishing between
> determinism as it applies to *an* event and determinism as it applies to a
> probability distribution.
MP>In some sense I did it when I compared a single event (the coin toss)
and the collective outcome (the frequency distribution). However, I am not
sure if there is such distinction. Both are generated by the same
processes.
> Further, the *actual* distribution may not match
> the probability distribution exactly.
MP>It will as the number of observations grow to infinity. Usually the fit
is pretty good after a couple thousand iterations in this case.
<snip>
CC> There is, this suggests, no magic way of distinguishing *true*
> randomness (if it could occur) and something that may merely be the
> "chaotic" working out of a deterministic process.]
MP> Actually there is. The whole area of chaos theory involves the
distinction between random noise and deterministic "noise" (chaos).
CC> But, Darwinian evolution does not need true randomness, anyway.
(I deleted the rest because I pretty much agree with all you wrote there).
MP>I understand your ideas here. However, my point is that there is no
hard and fast distinction between randomness and determinism since very
often one is the flip side of the other. Also, randomness and determinism
are not necessarily associated with design (or lack of it). Also, chaotic
behavior is recognized as such because of our inability to cope with
initial conditions with infinite precision, but that would not be a
problem for a Designer with infinite computation capabilities.
By the way, complete determinism would rule out any sort of free will, a
concept that is crucial even for IDers.
Cheers
Marcio
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 08:19:33 EDT