[MD] Static latching & faith

[david buchanan]

Scott:

Look, you keep talking about hanging on to "causality" over the preference 
model on the basis of data that may or may not be produced in the future. 
And you keep saying the preference model is not empirically based because 
there may be other models based on that same empirical data. I mean, you 
seem to be attacking the preference model as if it asserted some kind of 
absolute, objective truth. But as an intellectual truth within the MOQ, the 
preference model is far less ambitious and grandiose than that. See, the 
preference model is pragmatic. If a better model comes along in the future, 
that's fine. That is to be expected. Like I said, its inevitable and lovely 
too.

But if causality is re-discovered at the quantum level, then I'll have to 
re-think some things and you can feel free to gloat about that. Until then, 
your objections are sheer speculation based on wishes.

Thanks.
dmb

P.S. Einstein had big fuzzy dice from the rear view mirror of his volkswagen 
beatle and he used to like to tell a lot of "speed limit" jokes as he drove 
around.


>From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] Static latching & faith
>Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:26:58 -0700
>
>DMB,
>
>Scott said:
>Rolls of dice do not do the same thing every time, but we regard their
>behavior as lawlike...
>
>dmb replies:
>Well, apparently you can't even make sense when you're talking about dice.
>You invoke Einstein, who famously said "God does NOT play dice" as an
>assertion of his belief in the law-like behaviour of the universe, and then
>assert that dice act in a law-like way. Even though everybody and his
>retarded cousin Lester knows otherwise?
>
>Scott:
>They obey known physical laws of motion. And if Einstein believed in the
>law-like behavior of the universe, then that includes rolls of dice, no?
>Obviously he was speaking metaphorically. The only reason we can use dice 
>in
>games of chance is because practically we can't compute where they are 
>going
>to land up, since there are too many variables, but in principle their
>behavior is understood to follow the known *laws* of macroscopic physics.
>What Einstein was objecting to was the idea that in quantum physics such
>behavior may not even be theoretically predictable.
>
>- Scott
>
>
>moq_discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/