[FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will

glen gepropella at gmail.com
Fri Jan 26 13:46:57 EST 2024

The concept of causality is so irritating. It's like some kind of cafeteria style religion, where you pick and choose whatever attribute you like and toss all the attributes you dislike. So Marcus' identification of uncorrelated observations speaks directly to SteveS' assignation of an independent trajectory mutation at each pin in the game. The trajectory isn't random, but each turn in the trajectory is random. Similar with the difference between determinism and prestatability. Similar with the difference between causal chains versus causal networks.

All this is simply to torque my arm out of place patting myself on the back again. What matters is the *scope*, not some penultimate reduction to some Grand Unified Theory/Philosophy of the world. Nobody can say anything coherent without mentioning the scope of whatever it was they said ... the language within which they said it, etc.

On 1/26/24 07:37, Steve Smith wrote:
> I've only dropped a few Pachinko balls in my life, but I couldn't help agonizing over the trajectory of each one, feeling as if at every bounce they were at risk of "breaking bad" (or "good")...   since many here are at least part-time simulants (as Glen I believe refers to himself), even the most aggressive attempts at introducing "random" (noise, annealing, etc.) either degenerate to "pseudo-random" or engage with a physical system (e.g. sample a pixel-value from a webcam trained on a lava lamp) which of course is deterministic if arbitrarily complex.

On 1/26/24 08:14, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> One of the usual claims is that science couldn’t occur without independent observations.   I would co-opt Glen’s rhetoric here about parallax.  What’s need is largely uncorrelated observations.

ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

More information about the Friam mailing list