Re: Which Singularity Don't You Want?
- From: westprog@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 Nov 2005 07:19:34 -0800
"Damien Neil" <neild-usenet4@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:neild-usenet4-D19D56.01102528112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Damien Neil wrote:
> >
> > > For example, rocks fall downwards with no more reason or cause than
> > > nucleuses decay (unless someone dropped them on purpose), but their
> > > behavior is predictable and not random.
> >
> > Rocks are caused to fall by gravitation. Nuclei are also subject to
> > physical law, but the timing isn't. So far as we can tell, there's a
> > fixed probability for how likely it is for it to decay in any second,
> > but that doesn't tell us which second.
>
> So the fixed probability per second of decay isn't governed by a
> physical law? Surely not the Decay, Nucleus Fairy[1].
There are philosophers of science who find entirely random events
unacceptable. They are still forced to grapple with the fact. Nuclear
decay appears to be a causeless event. Rocks falling have a cause.
J/
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Harry Porter and the 21 Century
- Next by Date: Re: Which Singularity Don't You Want?
- Previous by thread: Re: Web forums and others
- Next by thread: Re: Which Singularity Don't You Want?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|