Re: Natural and Supernatural (was Chance and Selection)

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:53:18 EST

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "Re: Natural and Supernatural (was Chance and Selection)"

    Bertvan
    > If
    >every action were merely based upon contextual factors, I suspect nature
    >would be monotonous. It would resemble a universe run by computers - without
    >growth or spontaneity. Nature's diversity is the result of creative
    >exceptions - whether those exceptions are playful, selfish, altruistic,
    >rational, adventurous or whatever.

    Chris
    This tells us a *lot* more about your mind than it does about the
    possibilities of a deterministic Universe. It is a trivial matter to prove
    that a deterministic universe can be every bit as rich and varied as an
    indeterministic universe. In fact, that's one of the *main* reasons
    indeterminism could not be proved even if it were *true*; any alleged kind
    of indeterminism can be emulated to *any* finite degree of accuracy
    (billions upon billions of decimal places in the smallest units of possible
    measurement, if necessary) by an *absolutely* deterministic universe. This
    is why I would reject the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics,
    even if I did not have reasons for rejecting it on logical grounds.

    In short, there is no *empirical* way to distinguish indeterminism from
    merely *unknown* determinism. Thus, all such arguments for indeterminism
    are arguments from ignorance, from the *lack* of knowledge of deterministic
    mechanisms, and not from positive evidence of indeterminism. Indeterminism
    has no empirically distinguish characteristics because it is a failure of
    causation, not a positive fact. The only reason it even has the burden of
    proof is that supporters of it agree that some things *are* deterministic,
    and thus must prove that there are *exceptions* to the determinism that
    would otherwise have to be accepted as universal. But, because there cannot
    be positive evidence for it, it would be *very* difficult to prove it, even
    if it *were* true.

    If you don't believe it, think about it. Imagine *anything* that you think
    does or could happen by *indeterministic* processes, and then spend some
    time coming up with a few dozen ways that the *same* results could be
    achieved by strictly deterministic means.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 22:57:29 EST