science = determinism?

Peter da Silva peter at abbnm.com
Wed Nov 24 02:02:12 EST 1999


In article <qzH_3.2656$X5.361122 at ptah.visi.com>,
Peter Seebach <seebs at plethora.net> wrote:
> In article <383B7214.6021 at compuserve.com>,
> Will Dwinnell  <predictor at compuserve.com> wrote:
> >Science is the study of reality.  If reality is found to contain some
> >random [1] component, then shouldn't the above assumption be labeled dogma
> >and the insistence on that assumption be 'religious'?

> No.  If reality is found to contain some random component, we'll throw the
> result out and try again.

I'd like my new reality in teal with cinnamon piping, Doctor Heisenberg.

[1] The original phrase in the message Will followed up to was "non-
    deterministic".

-- 
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <peter at baileynm.com>
 `-_-'   Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu? 
  'U`    "And now, little kittens, we're going to run across red-hot
	  motherboards, with our bare feet." -- Buzh.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list