Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

["John M. Legge" <jlegge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fundamental uncertainty in my definition requires that an event is not
merely unpredicted but inexplicable in hindsight.  The net effect of
permitting multiple agents to interact is unpredictable, but this does not,
IMHO, mean that the result of any single interaction is either unpredictable
or inexplicable.  The time horizon beyond which events may become
unpredictable varies with the type of event or measurement under
consideration, but inside the horizon, whether it is picoseconds or years,
prediction is possible.  Thanks to Einstein we also know that studying a
shorter time interval also reduces the volume of space under consideration.

We also know from the complex system theorists that it is impossible to
build a computer smaller than the universe that can predict the universe's
evolution in real time: "the universe is its own best predictor", so no
being constrained within the universe can make successful long term
predictions, much less intervene so as to produce specific outcomes.
Supernatural beings, if they exist, are not constrained by the physical
properties of the universe and so are capable of producing outcomes that are
neither predictable nor explicable by those of us who are constrained to
operate within the physical universe.

The Christian God is inscrutable as well as being omniscient and omnipotent.
The Greek gods were capricious as well.  Describing fundamental
unpredictability as a consequence of divine dice throwing may sound
flippant, but once you admit God to the discussion you permit science to
leave, which was my original point,

JML


> -----Original Message-----
> From: pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Bruce McFarling
>
> In the recent flood of posts on heteroxy and crackpottery,
> on Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:34:54 +1000, "John M. Legge"
> <jlegge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Fundamental uncertainty requires uncaused causes (in complexity
> >terms, a God who throws dice), and making the acceptance of that
> >assumption the distinguishing feature of PK economics is closer
> >to a religious test than a scientific one, and could make PK a
> >very small tent indeed.
>
> I missed this one, but isn't it a doozy?  I had no idea that
> this old rhetorical ploy was still lurking around, but then
> I suppose every old rhetorical ploy that has ever trapped
> everyone is lurking around somewhere.
>
> Fundamental uncertainty only requires unpredictable effects
> of causes.  Any collection of evolving populations with
> selection determined in part by the characteristics of
> the members of the populations and interactions between
> those members of the populations will suffice to give
> unpredictable effects of causes.  We've had that for
> a sufficiently ample number of millions of years on this
> particular plot of real estate to count unpredictable
> effects of causes as a non-surprising thing, I should think.
>
>