Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:54:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D808065.4350244D@mindspring.com> References: <200209120405.g8C45u153131@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> writes: > > I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset of > > assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility. 8-) > > Very well put, and this is one of Mr. Lambert's biggest foibles > as evident by most of the discussions. Dave, the person who can predictively describe the universe as a derivation of the least number of assumptions wins. This is because it's *simpler* to have fewer assumptions. Each assumption is a "deux ex machina", which you will not be able to logically communicate to another person. You can only logically communicate information based on your set of shared assumptions, or shared principles derived from those assumptions, which fortuitously coincide. The larger your set of assumptions, the lower the probability that all your assumptions will be shared by someone else, and therefore the lower the probability that you will be able to effectively communicate with them, and the smaller your consensus set -- the things to which you are both willing to stipulate. This is the point you miss over and over again: it's possible for an individual and the larger homogeneous society to have irreconcilable differences, which may include continued tolerance of each others existance. -- Terry 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?3D808065.4350244D>