From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 17: 3:45 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5290A37B405 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8774443E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TJILtd083392; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:18:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7TJIKaJ083364; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:18:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D6DD985.81C8AF41@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020829115637.I63118-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > As if humans were modellable as a collection of automata with preset > > behavior and reaction to external stimuli. Another reason I don't > > believe you understand. > > Why is it that everyone believes that finite state automatons > are the ultimate answer to modelling complex systems? I'm sure > that this was not the intended result of the game of Life, nor > of Sugarscape. > > The modelling I'm talking about is based on games theory, not on > automata, and has its basis in mutual security games. Is this the same person who believes that life is not a zero-sum game? Isn't games theory based on the idea life *is* a zero-sum game? > > Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to > > see; usually this is not truth. > > Science is a process, not a religion. One's definition of science is governed by his religion, or underlying worldview, if you will. > > There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the > > world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The > > subject and the object are one. > > You failed statistics and modern physics, didn't you? 8-). There > *are* real points; even if you can't identify them, you can identify > their effects. And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity > above a quantum level is a popular misconception. What about the OJ trial? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message