snip
>Oh, no.
>The *outcomes* of *measurements* are random. However, the probability
>distribution of measurement results is quite deterministic. And if you
>consider a series of measurements, you get the tree I'm talking about. I.e.:
>[grossly oversimplified]
>
> |
> |
> | | | | [measurement 1]
> | | | |
> / \ / \ / \ / \ [measurement 2]
>
>While the result of these two measurements is random, the probability
>distribution is deterministic. [if some of the resulting end-conditions
>are indistiguishable, we have to consider interference as well--but even
>that leaves the distribution of results deterministic.]
>
>The evolution of an unmeasured state function *is* deterministic. Perhaps
>that is what you were referring to?
>
Absolutely. The ontological repercussion of the distinction people make
between
their "deterministic but unknowable future" (ie: the solution of the
unmeasured
state function of the universe) and their "probabilistic but knowable
future" (ie:
predictions based on measurements) is the fire of their angst. The fuel for
that
fire is their burning desire to determine whether or not they have "free
will",
which in turn deeply affects their world-view - their interpretation of
reality
(the mother-of-all-memes/the sum of all memes a person carries?).
I personally don't belabour such distinctions. Sure, my future is mapped
out, but
it's demonstrably impossible to ever see that map, which, as far as I can
logically
discern (without putting too fine a philisophical point on it), is
functionally
equivalent to "free will".
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....
Regards,
Dan
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Metasystem Transition History of the "Dan Plante" System
initial conditions = data (conception)
control of data = information (conception to puberty)
control of information = knowledge (puberty to marriage)
control of knowledge = wisdom (marriage to divorce)
-------------------------------------------------------------