[MD] Mystics and Brains

[David M]

> [Case]
While each interaction follows its own set of deterministic rules.

DM: Just been reading a book that argues that this belief is
widely asserted but is a red herring for which there is no
evidence at all, and that what evidence there is relates
to clearly unusual and non-universal forms of regularity.
The author, John Dupre, suggests science does not need this
unproven assumption to get on with its work. Most interactions
are very irregular and even carefully constructed machines
that try to design out all irregularity go wrong sooner or later.
I think causal completeness is a matter of faith not evidence and we
would be thinking alot better without it.