Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: If that's what you think, why argue? Message-ID: <1314@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 10:45:07 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1314 Posted: Tue Aug 20 10:45:07 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 20:00:37 EDT References: <1509@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 25 In article <1509@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >If at all. I don't know where you get my "insistance on pure determinism". >What I insist on is a little rigorous thinking, not "well this isn't true, >this bit about determinism, so surely MY idea that I like so much must >be true". Perhaps you are wishfully thinking that I am wishfully thinking? For crying out loud, Rich, that's my whole argument!!!! We are not scientifically in a position to decide the question. And besides, would you deny the following passage? >>>Yes, indeed, plenty of >>>human behavior APPEARS to be random, Charley. Plenty of lots of things >>>APPEAR to be random, but on closer examination, we find something holding >>>it together. A bit more complex than some people who prefer one-sentence >>>explanations for things ("God did it!"), but perhaps they're just too lazy >>>to examine things in that dreaded "scientific" way. One look at the >>>universe, one careful look, will show you how many "random" things >>>really have very simple physical processes at their root, complexly >>>interweaving with each other to give the illusion of "randomness" to >>>the casual observer. You call THAT rigor? Charley Wingate