Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:25:24 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711120225.TAA01027@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <19971112021408.64619@bitbox.follo.net> References: <199711110620.XAA15169@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711110645.XAA02334@usr03.primenet.com> <199711111652.JAA16566@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711111836.TAA22576@bitbox.follo.net> <199711111935.MAA17390@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711112339.AAA23291@bitbox.follo.net> <199711120011.RAA19556@rocky.mt.sri.com> <19971112021408.64619@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [Nate Williams] > > I see no predictability in humans behavior, and the arguements against > > the existance of God/god is defined by his behavior towards man, or in > > particular one person's ability to 'predict the future' in a controlled > > setting. > > NO predictability? I see a definite statistic predictability; e.g, I > can predict the likelihood that you're going to answer more messages > based on the number of messages you've answered before. Not necessarily so, since I may give up in frustration and all of you to my mail forwarder so I'm not bothered by it. Seriously, humans are fickle beings. > It isn't an exact prediction, but I can predict that SOMEBODY is going > to answer post a message to the freebsd-hackers list in the next week > with (so far) 100% reliability. That's human behavior, too :-) Actually, depending on the question, it may go totally unanswered if the person/people capable of answering doesn't care, is too busy, or are annoyed. You can't depend on human behavior. > I can predict that you're either going to eat food within the next six > months unless you die. That's a prediction on your personal behavior. Now you're being silly. I don't consider 'eating' a behavior, since it's a requirment. Bet you can't predict what I'm going to eat in the next 6 months based on my previous diet. > I don't believe in telepathy as-of-yet. I just find it an easier pill > to swallow than something that must by definition _also_ include an > unknown mode of communication, which is what telepathy would be. Call > it the 'smaller hypothesis'. Why is it smaller? > And I can't see how telepathy would need to be completely > un-quantifiable? I can see scores of ways to quantify it, and > probably measure it if it do exist. The fact that it hasn't been > shown in a repeatable experiment yet seems to show that it (if it > indeed exists) is fairly elusive, though. In the same manner as the existance of God, yes. :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711120225.TAA01027>