MBM

Would it make you feel any better if it were pointed out that the phrase "malevolent universe" is most likely equally statistically improbable?

"V is for Vendetta". That sounds like it should be the name of a Sue Grafton book.

Boy, this discussion is interesting. I wish I had the time and energy to follow it more closely and participate more actively. But be that as it may.... MSK: Yesterday morning due to leaving lights on overnight my car battery was completely dead. No noise when I turned the key. No radio, no dome lights, no nothing. In this state, could my car be analagous to the carcass you mention? A fully functioning car, minus the "it" stored in the battery? Of course, the analogy breaks down in that there is no analogue of AAA that you can call to get a jump start and infuse "it" back into the carcass. (At least not yet. There are places where this is being worked on --under the assumption that the "carcass" can be preserved sufficiently without decay such that adding "it" back into it will bring it to life again with the same "identity"). But my point is -- do you think that the "it" that makes the difference between a living being and a carcass has to be something other than physical matter and/or energy , or a certain state or arrangement of physical matter and/or energy? (Of course, I use the term "energy" in a physics sense, not in a "new age" sense such as "negative energy", etc). And I may be mistaken, but I think I pick up a hint that you think it somehow would devalue living entities, makes them less worthy of being loved and admired ("being called *merely* a result and not an entity in itself") if the "it" is "merely" the same type of physical stuff as the remaining carcass. I don't think this is any more true than that an awesome sunset ceases to be awesome once you understand all of the physics of light scattering, etc. Just my 2-cents MBM

Paul Mawdsley -- Darn, I wish I had more time. I'd like to respond to this post at length and in detail, but can't right now. Just a short response to one small part of it for now... It is of course true that the newborn baby doesn't have these principles established *conceptually*. I may have to think some more about this, but I do think that in some implicit way, the newborn *does* have these principles established -- they are part of the "toolset" he is born with. If that were not the case, why would the "blooming buzzing confusion" (as one of my philosophy professors in college referred to it, I think quoting one of the 16th or 17th century philosophers) that confronts the newborn's sensory organs ever even begin to resolve itself into separable and identifiable percepts(entities)? MBM

I've think I've encountered the same concept as "algorithmic randomness" before, but not under the same name. I think the word used was "uncomputeable" or something like that. For example, a computer program to generate the sequence of even numbers would be very small and simple. But a computer program to generate a truly random sequence of numbers would be at least as long, if not longer, than the sequence itself. In effect, the entire sequence would have to be embedded within the program itself, rather than being generated by an algorithm (This is not to be confused with what are called "pseudo-random number generators", which produce a sequence which appears random upon casual inspection, but is really generated by a formula and is completely deterministic.) Could you refer me to a book that discusses quantum phenomena in these terms? (Hopefully it wouldn't be too dense with mathematical formulas). I'm out of my depth here, but ....is it necessarily "fundamental causality" that goes out the window? Maybe its just that the cause isn't economically expressible in the form of a succinct law or principle. It could be *metaphysically* deterministic, but not *epistemological* predictable. JMHS (Just my humble speculation) MBM

Well, here's one vote in favor.... Hmmm, I wonder if I can get a "Who is Simon Garrick?" meme started on the Internet? MBM

Nice story, lots of silly and sophisticated wit, much LOL while reading this. And its good to hear someone say that there is virtue in one of my predominant personality traits...maybe there is hope for me yet! It seems that in browsing this forum there is an endless supply of delicious nuggets -- like being on an easter egg hunt. I'm afraid that I'll never catch up and get current, I'll forever be responding to months old posts. MBM

Was that novel ever published? I don't recall ever hearing of it. If its possible to obtain a copy I'd certainly be interested. MBM

This thread is very interesting to me... I continue to feel compelled to "travel back in time" to enter the conversation that took place a couple of weeks ago. I don't think free will is a manifestation of "randomness". If I exercise my will, I hope that there will be some correlation between my deliberations and my actions....if my action turns out to be "random", it can't very well be said to have been chosen (willed) by me. But, to you, my actions may *appear* random. That is, if you don't know enough about me, my character, the factors I consider in choosing my action, you would not have a basis to *predict* what I am going to do. That goes back to what I said a couple of posts ago about "random" being an epistemological, not a physical concept. Assuming (for the sake of argument, but I don't really believe it) that there *are* quantum processes that are non-determinstic, then it would become a scientific question whether such processes do or could have any effect on human mental and/or physioogical processes. But even if they did, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is any connection between that and volition. I believe that some of these supposedly indeterministic quantum effects are presently harnessed in electronics devices (someone may correct me if I am mistaken). At any rate, I've heard talk about a possible future technology called "quantum computing". But that doesn't mean that said electronics devices behave randomly. Much less have volition. These are my "random" musings. MBM P.S. Thats it for me today, I hope to pick up reading the rest of this thread tomorrow. Boy, this sure beats reading the daily news. This site could be addicting.

Michael -- Again, commenting on an early post in the thread without having read the rest of the thread, and hoping that I'm not being redundant..... I have always thought that "randomness" is an epistemological concept, not a physical concept. "Random" more or less means the opposite of "predictable". We say something is random when we don't know enough about the factors and forces involved to predict the outcome. Throwing dice is random because we don't know enough about the initial conditions (direction, speed, and spin) of the dice, the air currents and surface imperfections of the table they are thrown onto, etc. Even if we made a concerted effort to measure all of these factors, due to complexity we could probably never be precise enough to pin them down completely, so the throw of the dice would still remain at least partly random (i.e., the butterfly effect). But thats because of what we don't (and maybe can't) know, not because of the underlying nature of the physical world. As to whether "randomness can just be part of a thing's identity"....I think I understand what you're trying to say, but if I'm correct that randomness is an epistemological concept, then it would have to be said another way that doesn't have implications for what is or can be known. I think that a correct way to express what you're trying to say is "it *can* be the case that part of a thing's identity is that its behavior is non-deterministic" -- i.e., the later state is not a unique function of the earlier state. I don't understand quantum physics well enough to participate meaningfully in a discussion of whether there are quantum entities that behave non-determinsitcally -- but I admit I am biased toward the Einsteinian view. But be that as it may, if there truly *is* non-deterministic behavior at the quantum level, then (if I'm correct that "random" is an epistemological concept), I'm not sure that the word "random" would apply to this behavior, because in that case its not because of some factor or set of conditions we don't know that we can't predict it. Rather, there is nothing *to* know, that *could* be known, that would make it predictictable. But having said that, I'm not sure what word to use in place of "random" for this situation. Or maybe I do -- do we need a word other than "non-determinstic"? MBM

As usual, I've come late to this discussion, and I am responding to an early post without having read the later ones (it will take me a while to get to them). So maybe this point is already covered/discussed... but be that as it may: I am having a little bit of difficulty with the above quote. It seems to me that "before you can look at the evidence to figure out what are things and why they behave as they do", you have to already be assuming that things *are* something and that they *do* behave in a certain way (the principle of identity), and that their *is* a reason why they behave the way that they do (the principle of causality). So, I guess I think that the principles of identity and causality *are* axioms without which you can't begin to explore the world. Now, to read the rest of the thread and see if my mind gets changed. And hopefully, by the time I've finished reading this thread, I will know whether or not God plays dice with the universe. MBM

Sorry, I can't resist, this, but given the title of this thread, "In Spain", I am compelled by OCD to say the following: "In Spain?" The Rain is Mainly on the Plain! Sorry about that. MBM

In recent years, one idea under consideration (due to limited land availabiltiy) for expanding the Los Angeles airport (LAX), which is located close to the shore, has been to extend it out into the ocean via floating platforms. I don't know whether its still under consideration, has been found to be unfeasible, or has been rejected as too costly. But assuming that it were to be found feasible and were done, I wonder how much of a leap from that it would be to the "man-made, island nation" idea. MBM

I don't see a settlement on either the Moon or Mars, at least for the foreseeable future (say 400 years). We *could* do it, but why? What are you going to get up there that you don't have here? What are you going to do there? The Moon has nothing for us, save the potential for automated astronomical observatories. The far side would be great for radio astronomy, away from Earth radio interference. Mars has nothing for us either, and is only marginally less hostile than the Moon. Actually it is hostile in different ways. If you had the capability of interstellar travel and were searching for planets or moons to visit or inhabit, you certainly wouldn't consider the Moon and you'd only quickly glance at Mars. They'd both be unacceptable. I've heard people claim the Moon and Mars are potentially springboards to the stars. I disagree. Going to the Moon or Mars is a matter of technology we do not have (re: we cannot do it today) but could develop with will and money. Going to the stars requires science we do not have and may never have. It's something we can and should pursue but at the moment the stars are beyond our reach. Don't be so pessimistic. I think commercial entrepreneurship will provide the "springboards", if the government stays out of the way. Entrepeuneurs are presently working to bring down the cost of launching payloads into space (remember the recent X-prize competition?) I can't give you the reference right now, but I recently saw an article in the L.A. times that there are entrepeneurs presently working on the idea of orbiting space hotels. I don't know what their timeframe is, but I would have to assume that they have technical experts on board who are cognizant of issues such as the radiation hazard and have some idea of an approach to solving that problem, so that semi-permanent staff could work there. And, the development of new technology always has applications not forseen initially, and brings things that were once considered forever out of reach closer to feasibility. Technical progress is incremental, but the increments add up like compound interest. I fully expect mankind to reach Mars and beyond eventually, and may find uses for the Moon, asteroids (I've heard "asteroid mining" mentioned), and Mars that presently don't seem feasible. I only wish I could have sufficient lifespan to see it all happen. MBM