Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020829115637.I63118-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D6DD985.81C8AF41@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020829115637.I63118-100000>