(February 1, 2009 at 10:15 pm)DD_8630 Wrote: Josef, I fear you do not fully understand what we are talking about here. There is a subtle difference between 'hard to predict' and 'fundamentally unpredictable': we can't make accurate weather forecasts because it's too complex for us to completely model, not because it's inherently indeterminate (as opposed to quantum particles, which really are inherently indeterminate)
I'm sorry but what you maintain here I call it hair splitting.
I am not a scientist ,nor a philosopher but a M.Sc.graduate in electrical engineering and I look at the world in a practical matter and at scientific problems from a technical point of view based on a large experience in technical problems.
This is my approach also to atheism .
I consider that the ordinary world we are living in, is governed by laws of nature ,devoid of any supernatural influence but in the same time characterized ,each of them (may be that there are also exceptions)by a dual form of order ond disorder.
Disorder is by no means an act of a supernatural force but a result of cause/effect event,only that the effect might be of the type of the uncertainity principle or a result of a not definable great number of causes which according to the Occam's razor principle tansform it in a de facto disorder.
You can consider what I'm saying as not exactly philosophically correct.
May be that the postulation is flawed by some inexact expressions,I don't care.
The essence of it is proved by life no matter in which direction you are looking ,it is in classical physics ,in economy ,in sciology,in biology ,in medecine and so on.
Quote:With all due respect, you are like a child using an English-French dictionary to translate every individual word in a sentence. That you resort to an encyclopaedic array of definitions (from Wikipedia, no less), just demonstrates how little you know about the subject.
Have you ever heard of a disambiguation page? Wikipedia uses them to distinguish between the many definitions of a single word. "Set", for example, has a plethora of associated links.
Now, I have great respect for Wikipedia's scientific rigour. Unfortunately, you have grossly misunderstood the terms with which it describes indeterminism.
With all due respect you have forgotten what you have said about my quotation from Hawking's book on the Occam's razor principle in the thread "determinism vs.indeterminism."
Negativism in one debate may be interesting but a stubborn negativism lowers the level of the debate to futile contradictions.
The Latins said "erare humanum est,perseverare diabolicum" which means that error is humanly but stubborness diabolic.
Please pay attention that what I'm saying here has nothing personal but only general thoughts about the subject,and this as opposite to your method of trying to degrade my ideas by different names.
