From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 4:55:54 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 3A31337B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C7643E65 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:55:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0003.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.3] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pSZ1-0000iJ-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:55:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3D808065.4350244D@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:54:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209120405.g8C45u153131@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset of > > assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility. 8-) > > Very well put, and this is one of Mr. Lambert's biggest foibles > as evident by most of the discussions. Dave, the person who can predictively describe the universe as a derivation of the least number of assumptions wins. This is because it's *simpler* to have fewer assumptions. Each assumption is a "deux ex machina", which you will not be able to logically communicate to another person. You can only logically communicate information based on your set of shared assumptions, or shared principles derived from those assumptions, which fortuitously coincide. The larger your set of assumptions, the lower the probability that all your assumptions will be shared by someone else, and therefore the lower the probability that you will be able to effectively communicate with them, and the smaller your consensus set -- the things to which you are both willing to stipulate. This is the point you miss over and over again: it's possible for an individual and the larger homogeneous society to have irreconcilable differences, which may include continued tolerance of each others existance. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message