Re: He *CANNOT* be serious! Right?
- From: stew dean <stewdean@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 May 2007 16:25:04 -0700
On 30 Apr, 22:00, "nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx"
<nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30 apr, 21:38, b...@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
Now if you want pretty good predictions
awfully far in advance, then yes, we have that down pat.
Again, this is really not true, we observe variation and that's why we
correct models with observation.
So what causes these variations - or are they uncaused?
In any case for most purposes this
variation is not significant, so sure I would hire a Darwinists to
study some system where there's no significant freedom, you all have
proved your point that you're all knowledgeable about that.
If by 'Darwinist' you mean evolutionist then how is this linked with
evolution?
You have
also shown that you all don't know the first thing about freedom, and
so you should stay far away from the humanities with your emotion-
brainscans, and stay away from most quantum-mechanics,
weather prediction models, dynamic systems analysis etc. just basically
anything where there seems to different possible results starting from
same initial conditions, you all should stay away from it.
So what do you consider freedom? Does an act of freedom have a cause
or is it causeless? If it is without cause how does it differ form
true randomness. If it is caused how does it sit outside of usual
cause and effect?
Stew Dean
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Talk Origins Photo Album
- Next by Date: Re: Re: Talk Origins Photo Album
- Previous by thread: Re: He *CANNOT* be serious! Right?
- Next by thread: Re: He *CANNOT* be serious! Right?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading