Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:50:34 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711120750.AAA02612@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711120731.AAA01244@usr01.primenet.com> References: <199711120718.AAA02460@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711120731.AAA01244@usr01.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > "Perfectly Random" doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > Prove it. I say it does. :) :) :) > > > > > > It's the simpler explanation. > > > > Simpler != correct. > > We've been here. Simpler == provisionally correct in the absence of > empirical evidence to the contrarary. We've been here, but I don't agree to your 'waving of the hands' that claims it's provisionally correct. > > > Prove that it does, or provide some > > > empirical evidence which contradicts the hypothesis... 8-). > > > > Human behavior. Why do I fall in love with who I fall in love with? > > A 2-3 reducatase reaction, similar to that induced by the consumption > of chocolate? Yeah, right. Nice try, but go back to school and learn some more. :) > > Why do some children raised in the exact same circumstances turn out > > totally different? > > Because they are genetically predestined to do so? Nope, see below. > > Why do twins with the *exact* same DNA look and act different? > > Or your measure of "the exast same circumstances" lacks sufficient > resoloution for it to be an accurate observation? There has to be > at least a one cubic foot difference in their perspective. You > could claim it was environmental. But, the environment is similar enough that in many cases their siblings are more alike in certain behaviors to one twin than the two are alike. No explanation you can come up with can 'wave away' our explain their behavior in an acceptable manner. Hence, you cannot model human behavior since it essentially a chaotic system. But, even completely chaotic systems exhibit some 'patterns', which makes is down-right frustrating when you start to rely on those patterns, or make the assumptions that those patterns are adequate to fully model the behavior and fall on your face. :) :) > > > A grid etched on a plain can have a defined grid unit size without > > > the plane having to be finite. > > > > Yes, but you've only described a subset, not the entire thing. > > How do you think "proof by induction" works? > Proof by induction assumes that the behavior of the system is the same across all of the space, and it fails since the behavior and/or model we know is incomplete. It works well with numbers since we've arbitrarily limited the model to something simple for communication purposes. > > > > With the same token energy maybe infinite as well.... > > > > > > Again, the best evidence is that we live in a closed universe. > > > > Your evidence comes from different sources than mine. > > Yes. Mine comes from the Empirical observations of Physicists. 8-) 8-). Should I bring in Brian Handy, who *almost* has a Ph.D in Solar Physics. And, don't think I'm not willing to use/abuse his knowledge and talents. :) :) > > [ I assert that Artificial intelligence can't be created ] > [ ... and I "deassert" it -- 8-)... ] > > True, but I don't have the purden of proof, you do. I assert that it > > can't be done, so you must therefore prove to me that it can. All of > > the emperical evidence up till now supports my claim. :) > > What about the Empirical fact that human beings exist, and there's no > evidence that they are anything other than atomic scale machines? Again, you're using circular logic that I don't agree with. I assert that the human being is *more* than just atoms spinning around, but that requires Faith. :) :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711120750.AAA02612>