From owner-freebsd-chat  Tue Nov 11 10:37:13 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11833
          for chat-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:37:13 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat)
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11820
          for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:37:01 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
	by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA23698;
	Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:36:12 GMT
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id TAA22576;
	Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:36:10 +0100 (MET)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:36:10 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199711111836.TAA22576@bitbox.follo.net>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
CC: tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Nate Williams's message of Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:52:02 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal)
References: <199711110620.XAA15169@rocky.mt.sri.com>
	<199711110645.XAA02334@usr03.primenet.com>
	<199711111652.JAA16566@rocky.mt.sri.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > If you weren't predictive, I might claim you were schitzophernic until
> > you became predictive... any factually based model is predictive.
> 
> Hearing from God != foretelling the future.

However, if it isn't predictive, it is more-or-less uninteresting.  It
doesn't give you information - information is predictive.  It might
give you good feelings and "solutions to your problems", but noting
that is relevant to the rest of the world.

OTOH, I believe information on India to be predictive - so far, no
country I've been told about as personal experience by more than 20
people have failed to be there when I tried to visit it :-)

I believe in a common reality.  I also believe in measurements of this
common reality - let's call it 'the physical world' - being common to
people.  I believe in some of these measurements being usable to
statistically predict later measurements, and being able to use that
to define the world.  Another belief is in the ability of people
(including me) to fool themselves.  All of those are religious beliefs
- I can't think of anything you could say/demonstrate to make me loose
them.

I don't feel the need for a god to be able to describe the world, this
I don't introduce one.  There are obvious changes in brain-chemistry
that explain religious ecstasy and other verifiable religious effects.
I can't see any need to connect them with anything more than the
rituals and ability to self-deceit in the people involved.  As soon as
something is predictive beyond the physical world, this need changes,
and I'll reconsider my opinion.

Eivind.