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