It's $1.25 private research crowded out for every $1 public not just b/c the gov't is less efficient, but also b/c the state extracts its handling charge for collecting taxes.
What are your thoughts on patents/copywrite protection. Consider linux vs. windows Linux illustrates the power of non-market based software development in a manner similar to our approach to science, in which each programmer is allowed to see and build on previous work and doesn't have to worry about creating a separate isolated product that can be sold. The end result has been a much more stable operating system that is used in everything from servers to toasters!
No. Look, you ate some junk food at some point in your life, yet today you are much healthier than cavemen at your age. Thus junk food is good!
You're making a similar fallacy here. There was state intervention. There was progress.
I don't know what you're talking about each programmer not having to make a separate product. Lots of people work on things - like cars - which are then sold as single products. You don't know what a market is. Don't ask me, go read my book.
@Tsicar No it doesn't. GNU/Linux is an example of free-market at work (minus the copyright part) compared to Windows which is more of an example of a pro-business product given a larger monopoly through state laws.
How things have been done isn't the only way how things can be done - i) VS How things have been done is the only way how things can be done - ii). Alone ii) is a pretty risky suggestion. If that's all Prof. Chomsky says, then it doesn't look good for the Prof. However, it seems, we need to try out the other model to see the conclusion.
I think you're missing something. It's not about "us" "trying something new". This isn't some community meeting where we decide, explicitly and in eyesight of each other, to build a well or not.
This is 300 million people who don't know each other and may hate each other if they did. Before you start "experimenting", you need to smash the state. But until then, nothing will happen and if something does it is all political.
I was talking about forms of thoughts, arguments, & proofs in more general sense, i.e. my comment isn't necessarily about your vid, although, your vid triggered me to come up with it; if you remove the sentence with the term "Prof. Chomsky", then it becomes a bit clearer that it's about certain general forms.
Furthermore, It seems your reply is solely targeting MLS (my last sentence). There are only two ways prove anything: conceptual (deduction, e.g. pure math; not all pure math are proven deductively, some of them are or can be proven inductively: Mathematical Induction), empirical (observation, experimentation). Moreover, the term "we" in MLS isn't you & I nor Anarchists.
"Anarchy" means nothing. It means to be against "archy", "archy" is whatever you don't like. If you support what other people don't like ("archy"), then you are not an "anarchist". It's very simple. I learned this the hard way, by using "anarchist". Don't use that word, you will be fighting semantic battles forever and will go nowhere.
But I've made a book and audiobook, my thoughts are organized. On the youtube channel foranemergentgov if you care, and on the link that is my channel title.
Thank you for your response. I have one more questions; regarding your description of "Anarchy" is that the common usage (contemporary) or an axiom (definition)?
quick note: let's keep in mind that Francis Bacon's torture and theft practices have no bearing *per se* upon whether or not he was right about public science... heh...
anyway... I can see the parallels between "the invisible hand" and "natural selection," but I would still like to see if it would be *possible* to *engineer* an economy that would produce better results than the process that gave us the Great White Shark, the mosquito, the piranha, and HIV... >_>
You give these abstract theories with never an ounce of actual empirical data man. Anyone can prove anything with abstract theory.
First, govt spending DOESNT crowd out investment: Reagans historic budget deficits went hand in hand with historical levels of FDI in the US.
Second the largest markets in the world, securities markets, see rapid imitation of complex financial products (Tufano 1989 Carrow 1999). If your theory cant explain the biggest markets then its time 4 a new theory.
this is pretty much true. I'm an engineer working in the gas turbine power generation industry for one of the big names. We are CONSTANTLY doing research (not just for new stuff, but also to improve existing hardware and make it run longer/cheaper) because if we don't, the other guys turbine will be better than ours and we will loose market share..profits will tank..yada-yada..government has ZERO role in the productivity..all they do is tax and regulate (more tax in compliance) our industry.
Prior to patents, businesses used to encapsulate new inventions like engines within an outer casing, and use other means to obfuscate how their design operated.
I think you are generally right about technology. But for some basic science, such as particle physics, we do need government support because the sheer size of the projects and the lack of practical application.
Okay, key is SOME basic science with your objection.
Even at the current tax rates, people give loads to charity. That there are so many who bring up this "basic research" objection tells be there is a market for scientific charity. And people give money to charities for various reasons.
Okay, key is SOME basic science with your objection.
Even at the current tax rates, people give loads to charity. That there are so many who bring up this "basic research" objection tells be there is a market for scientific charity. And people give money to charities for various reasons.
I think you are generally right about technology. But for some basic science, such as particle physics, we do need government support because the sheer size of the projects and the lack of practical application.
What about digital copying. It could take Company A 100K to make a product, and average joe blow 100 dollars to copy it 10,000 times.
This unlike the physical copying of a pill/drug, there is no requirement for digital copying to have dedicated research technicians as things like cd/dvd writers and computer operating systems are readily available and made duplicating things, digitally, a black box affair.
Could someone address this, preferably fringeelements?
@eiffuy if you're talking about media like songs and movies, that's just stupid. if you're talking about specialized software, hack protection is a big part of RnD.
@FiremanHurley My point is, anything that can be digitally copied, texts, audio, video, specialized software, 3D objects with 3D printers, does not need as much funds
The cost of copying is so low that pretty much anyone can afford it, and you dont need to do research to reverse engineer a thing because some computer operation, turned reverse engineering into a black box task.
e.g you write a document, you attempt to sell it, in less than 5 minutes I could duplicate it and flood the market.
@FiremanHurley (cont'd) hack protection, again doesn't need as much research and reverse engineering to crack. This is because you only need one person to crack the protection and share that process, and then thousands of people all at once could be duplicating the whatever, virtually for 0 cost.
This is unlike reverse engineering a car to build your own model, you do not have to be skilled in digitally copying to make it happen.
@eiffuy Hack protection is only relevant for professional software used for very specific purposes. If you are an amateur just fiddling around, there is almost always a free version of some type of software that is more than adequate. Your example of "writing a document" just illustrates an inflated sense of the value of a document, which a free market would indeed crush.
How is Chomsky a statist? Not denying that he isn't, nor defending him, just curious on what basis he can be labeled as such, since he so vehemently claims to be anti-statist, as far as I know...
There are several reasons why statist science hurt science. Statist research is funded by taxing or by printing money. When the extortion racket imposes taxes it demolishes productivity. The more lateral the tax the more damage it does laterally. When the extortion racket prints money to fund the research its putting dead money into the economy.
Also, when the government is doing scientific research it bans or restrict people outside from doing the same research. Usually under the banner of safety but it can be easily be interpreted as the government doesn't want to be embarrassed by the free market.
"Science is unpredictable"? I though you held a determinist position? I know words are use conceptually. Creativity is hard to explain. I am unsure where it comes from, but I know it exists. If what creates creativity comes from the past events, then randomly more people would come up with the same idea at the same time. I am unsure how determinists explain creativity. I know determinists view "free-will" as non-existent. How does one choose a new path, one that does not exist before?
@tpsisokayiguess Oh, the discussion from a month ago when into big details about predicting one's choice to disprove the idea of "free-will". Randomness was discarded. And to my memory, "cause and effect" is the bases of determinism. If you had perfect knowledge, you can predict the future....this is from the determinists. I've been reading on the subject, it is interesting to me. So what matters determinism, if it doesn't predict? It only explains? Let me know.
@ZullGostnu2 Sure, assuming perfect knowledge and determinism (cause and effect), the universe becomes wholly calculable. But given the fact that our tools and perceptions, our minds, are indeed limited, there cannot be perfect prediction of everything; this does however not do anything to prove determinism wrong. I have never heard any good argument against cause and effect.
@tpsisokayiguess If "cause and effect" is universally true everywhere equally... Then why at the subatomic level using quantum theory there is no cause/effect? At least not in the immediate space and time. The rate of radioactive decay has no cause or effect. Since subatomic partials make up matter and we are made up of matter...My brain is made of matter that has no cause or effect. The concept of "cause and effect" is just as weak as "free will". It is an illusion, a good illusion.
@ZullGostnu2 People forget that the subatomic, even atomic, level is already very conceptualized and therefore is subject to the same limitations that prevent us from calculating and predicting complex systems.
@tpsisokayiguess Even given perfect knowledge, dynamical systems - which comprise a huge number of complex systems - are still not predictable. These systems are fully deterministic, but remain unpredictable.
Just an aside, there are many good arguments against cause and effect in the systems and dynamical systems literature. In a complex system, there is no cause - at least not as it is traditionally defined.
O.o I think you are forgetting something. It is unpredictable to us, to our little computer brain, but that does not mean that it can not be predicted. and in science things that should happen do happen, when those things happen, sometimes we just didnt know it could happen. If all things can be predicted its irrelevent what a determinist thinks is random, cause it is predictable by nature.
@anonforuz ok, so you are saying...determinism is contextual based. Outside the context, determinism is undefined..or unpredictable. I don't want to strawman you, just wondering. The basic assumption of determinism, everything is understandable...perfect knowledge. Yet no one, human or god, is capable of perfect knowledge. No one is capable of determinism? I can see truth inside a context...ok...I can see determinism inside a context. I do not see inherent or absolute determinism.
@ZullGostnu2 also wanted to say that I dont think determinism or at least my understanding of it is about perfect knowledge. there may be things we just cant know. i think its more just an understanding that things are orderly.
@ZullGostnu2 Look up dynamical systems theory. Dynamical systems are fully deterministic, yet are unpredictable. Further, they can be perturbed into different attractor states, changing the dynamic trajectory of the system. Neural states are such systems.
@landfillpoet So even with a pretended perfect knowledge, I still can't determine a dynamical system? Would this not disprove determinism? With my small amount of knowledge, many things are indeterminable. It is only when I narrow the context, can I determine anything. I am not a god. I do not have ultimate knowledge. If there is determinism, is this the ultimate truth? I doubt it.
@ZullGostnu2 Even with perfect knowledge down to the subatomic level, you cannot perfectly predict a dynamical system. The system is fully deterministic, such that at time T1 there is only one possible state for the system at time T2. Predictability has little to do with determinism here - the system's behavior is determined, whether it's behavior can be predicted is another matter entirely. Also, the system has more than one deterministic state into which it can enter...
@landfillpoet Determinism only deals with the past? Then I fail to understand how determinism disproves the idea of "free will". Or that I can not make unpredictable choices. I see "free will" as a concept like "imaginary numbers". A concept, not a physical object. My idea of free will is the ability to make unpredictable choices. Determinism does not predict the future? It seems others say it does. Are you a determinist? just wondering.
@ZullGostnu2 Huh? I never said that determinism only deals with the past. Again, don't confound determinism and predictability. Your behaviors are deterministic, but may be unpredictable. Further, theorists have postulated a top-down control over certain elements of the system that might be construed as free will.
Dynamical systems are complex systems, as such explaining them can be difficult, but I think they reconcile the ideas of determinism and "free will" - whatever that is...
@landfillpoet Ok, my behavior are deterministic, but may be unpredictable...I don't mean to go all newspeak on you... equating determinism with predictable.... I really don't understand...it appears one leads to the other. If I can determine something, I should be able to predict it. Predicting is a future action. If determinism is based on cause and effect and cause is a function of the past, how do you say determinism operates in the future? Determinism works for me in a narrow context
It's $1.25 private research crowded out for every $1 public not just b/c the gov't is less efficient, but also b/c the state extracts its handling charge for collecting taxes.
nskinsella 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on patents/copywrite protection. Consider linux vs. windows Linux illustrates the power of non-market based software development in a manner similar to our approach to science, in which each programmer is allowed to see and build on previous work and doesn't have to worry about creating a separate isolated product that can be sold. The end result has been a much more stable operating system that is used in everything from servers to toasters!
scotths 1 year ago
No. Look, you ate some junk food at some point in your life, yet today you are much healthier than cavemen at your age. Thus junk food is good!
You're making a similar fallacy here. There was state intervention. There was progress.
I don't know what you're talking about each programmer not having to make a separate product. Lots of people work on things - like cars - which are then sold as single products. You don't know what a market is. Don't ask me, go read my book.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@scotths GNU/Linux sucks ass.
Tsicar 10 months ago
@Tsicar No it doesn't. GNU/Linux is an example of free-market at work (minus the copyright part) compared to Windows which is more of an example of a pro-business product given a larger monopoly through state laws.
erelpc 8 months ago
@erelpc Still doesn't refute my claim — and I'll say it again: GNU/Linux sucks ass.
Tsicar 8 months ago
you should do more videos in your smug voice. =)
elliotcheely 1 year ago
How things have been done isn't the only way how things can be done - i) VS How things have been done is the only way how things can be done - ii). Alone ii) is a pretty risky suggestion. If that's all Prof. Chomsky says, then it doesn't look good for the Prof. However, it seems, we need to try out the other model to see the conclusion.
nonaCbarC 1 year ago
@nonaCbarC
I think you're missing something. It's not about "us" "trying something new". This isn't some community meeting where we decide, explicitly and in eyesight of each other, to build a well or not.
This is 300 million people who don't know each other and may hate each other if they did. Before you start "experimenting", you need to smash the state. But until then, nothing will happen and if something does it is all political.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements Pt 1
I was talking about forms of thoughts, arguments, & proofs in more general sense, i.e. my comment isn't necessarily about your vid, although, your vid triggered me to come up with it; if you remove the sentence with the term "Prof. Chomsky", then it becomes a bit clearer that it's about certain general forms.
nonaCbarC 1 year ago
@fringeelements Pt 2
Furthermore, It seems your reply is solely targeting MLS (my last sentence). There are only two ways prove anything: conceptual (deduction, e.g. pure math; not all pure math are proven deductively, some of them are or can be proven inductively: Mathematical Induction), empirical (observation, experimentation). Moreover, the term "we" in MLS isn't you & I nor Anarchists.
nonaCbarC 1 year ago
@fringeelements Pt 3
I don't know politics well;mostly learned from YouTube for approx 1.5 yr. What is the common usage of the term "Anarchy" these days?
nonaCbarC 1 year ago
"Anarchy" means nothing. It means to be against "archy", "archy" is whatever you don't like. If you support what other people don't like ("archy"), then you are not an "anarchist". It's very simple. I learned this the hard way, by using "anarchist". Don't use that word, you will be fighting semantic battles forever and will go nowhere.
But I've made a book and audiobook, my thoughts are organized. On the youtube channel foranemergentgov if you care, and on the link that is my channel title.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements
Thank you for your response. I have one more questions; regarding your description of "Anarchy" is that the common usage (contemporary) or an axiom (definition)?
It seems you have another channel. Cool. Thanks.
nonaCbarC 1 year ago
quick note: let's keep in mind that Francis Bacon's torture and theft practices have no bearing *per se* upon whether or not he was right about public science... heh...
anyway... I can see the parallels between "the invisible hand" and "natural selection," but I would still like to see if it would be *possible* to *engineer* an economy that would produce better results than the process that gave us the Great White Shark, the mosquito, the piranha, and HIV... >_>
AdderallApocalypse 1 year ago
You give these abstract theories with never an ounce of actual empirical data man. Anyone can prove anything with abstract theory.
First, govt spending DOESNT crowd out investment: Reagans historic budget deficits went hand in hand with historical levels of FDI in the US.
Second the largest markets in the world, securities markets, see rapid imitation of complex financial products (Tufano 1989 Carrow 1999). If your theory cant explain the biggest markets then its time 4 a new theory.
JP2times2007 1 year ago
Reverse engineer / Industrial spies. Bring more foreigners into your company.
workwillfreeyou 1 year ago
Excellent video and very good performance!
ZotMalakhov 1 year ago
Comment removed
NAARandom 1 year ago
Nice work. We need to get rid of the Department of Education, too.
SuperSteveFiftySeven 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperSteveFiftySeven 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperSteveFiftySeven 1 year ago
this is pretty much true. I'm an engineer working in the gas turbine power generation industry for one of the big names. We are CONSTANTLY doing research (not just for new stuff, but also to improve existing hardware and make it run longer/cheaper) because if we don't, the other guys turbine will be better than ours and we will loose market share..profits will tank..yada-yada..government has ZERO role in the productivity..all they do is tax and regulate (more tax in compliance) our industry.
sniffsnarff 1 year ago
Your videos are invaluable.
Americaleb 1 year ago
Well If I wanted to copy Viagra, I'd have to take it apart structualy, and then see what it reacts with chemically.
VALsacount2 1 year ago
Prior to patents, businesses used to encapsulate new inventions like engines within an outer casing, and use other means to obfuscate how their design operated.
Sepero1 1 year ago
5:45 - 5:57 I wasn't aware Anglos still hunted with spears in 1000 AD. XP
But aside from that triviality, great video. Very well argued.
Blahblahblah3210 1 year ago
bla bla blaaaaa ... . .. .
OdeToNecrophilia 1 year ago
Love the airplane example.
iamacyborg 1 year ago 2
Great video!
I seriously wish youtube hadn't banned your old account. There were loads of video's of your I could've linked to other people.
I also wish youtube hadn't messed up everything on their site over the week... (second time I've had to type this comment)
sharperguy 1 year ago
LOL, free market fundamentalist you got pwned.
Nice Ryan.
fireman12888 1 year ago
thanks for re-uploading this. classic.
Decentralism 1 year ago
I think you are generally right about technology. But for some basic science, such as particle physics, we do need government support because the sheer size of the projects and the lack of practical application.
JudgeHades 1 year ago
Okay, key is SOME basic science with your objection.
Even at the current tax rates, people give loads to charity. That there are so many who bring up this "basic research" objection tells be there is a market for scientific charity. And people give money to charities for various reasons.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Okay, key is SOME basic science with your objection.
Even at the current tax rates, people give loads to charity. That there are so many who bring up this "basic research" objection tells be there is a market for scientific charity. And people give money to charities for various reasons.
fringeelements 1 year ago 5
I think you are generally right about technology. But for some basic science, such as particle physics, we do need government support because the sheer size of the projects and the lack of practical application.
JudgeHades 1 year ago
What about digital copying. It could take Company A 100K to make a product, and average joe blow 100 dollars to copy it 10,000 times.
This unlike the physical copying of a pill/drug, there is no requirement for digital copying to have dedicated research technicians as things like cd/dvd writers and computer operating systems are readily available and made duplicating things, digitally, a black box affair.
Could someone address this, preferably fringeelements?
eiffuy 1 year ago
Comment removed
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eiffuy if you're talking about media like songs and movies, that's just stupid. if you're talking about specialized software, hack protection is a big part of RnD.
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
@FiremanHurley My point is, anything that can be digitally copied, texts, audio, video, specialized software, 3D objects with 3D printers, does not need as much funds
The cost of copying is so low that pretty much anyone can afford it, and you dont need to do research to reverse engineer a thing because some computer operation, turned reverse engineering into a black box task.
e.g you write a document, you attempt to sell it, in less than 5 minutes I could duplicate it and flood the market.
eiffuy 1 year ago
@FiremanHurley (cont'd) hack protection, again doesn't need as much research and reverse engineering to crack. This is because you only need one person to crack the protection and share that process, and then thousands of people all at once could be duplicating the whatever, virtually for 0 cost.
This is unlike reverse engineering a car to build your own model, you do not have to be skilled in digitally copying to make it happen.
eiffuy 1 year ago
@eiffuy Hack protection is only relevant for professional software used for very specific purposes. If you are an amateur just fiddling around, there is almost always a free version of some type of software that is more than adequate. Your example of "writing a document" just illustrates an inflated sense of the value of a document, which a free market would indeed crush.
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
New youtube layout sucks...
oh and good video.
ImperviousMason 1 year ago
Did you see the response to you by OtherJacobSpinney?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
"statist hack Noam Chomsky" LOL Perfect!
return135 1 year ago 9
@return135:
How is Chomsky a statist? Not denying that he isn't, nor defending him, just curious on what basis he can be labeled as such, since he so vehemently claims to be anti-statist, as far as I know...
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
There are several reasons why statist science hurt science. Statist research is funded by taxing or by printing money. When the extortion racket imposes taxes it demolishes productivity. The more lateral the tax the more damage it does laterally. When the extortion racket prints money to fund the research its putting dead money into the economy.
tacoguy1988 1 year ago
Also, when the government is doing scientific research it bans or restrict people outside from doing the same research. Usually under the banner of safety but it can be easily be interpreted as the government doesn't want to be embarrassed by the free market.
tacoguy1988 1 year ago
was this a re-upload from confed?
0bodobod0 1 year ago
"Science is unpredictable"? I though you held a determinist position? I know words are use conceptually. Creativity is hard to explain. I am unsure where it comes from, but I know it exists. If what creates creativity comes from the past events, then randomly more people would come up with the same idea at the same time. I am unsure how determinists explain creativity. I know determinists view "free-will" as non-existent. How does one choose a new path, one that does not exist before?
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
@ZullGostnu2 Determinism has nothing to do with predictability.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
@tpsisokayiguess Oh, the discussion from a month ago when into big details about predicting one's choice to disprove the idea of "free-will". Randomness was discarded. And to my memory, "cause and effect" is the bases of determinism. If you had perfect knowledge, you can predict the future....this is from the determinists. I've been reading on the subject, it is interesting to me. So what matters determinism, if it doesn't predict? It only explains? Let me know.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
@ZullGostnu2 Sure, assuming perfect knowledge and determinism (cause and effect), the universe becomes wholly calculable. But given the fact that our tools and perceptions, our minds, are indeed limited, there cannot be perfect prediction of everything; this does however not do anything to prove determinism wrong. I have never heard any good argument against cause and effect.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
@tpsisokayiguess If "cause and effect" is universally true everywhere equally... Then why at the subatomic level using quantum theory there is no cause/effect? At least not in the immediate space and time. The rate of radioactive decay has no cause or effect. Since subatomic partials make up matter and we are made up of matter...My brain is made of matter that has no cause or effect. The concept of "cause and effect" is just as weak as "free will". It is an illusion, a good illusion.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
@ZullGostnu2 People forget that the subatomic, even atomic, level is already very conceptualized and therefore is subject to the same limitations that prevent us from calculating and predicting complex systems.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
@tpsisokayiguess Even given perfect knowledge, dynamical systems - which comprise a huge number of complex systems - are still not predictable. These systems are fully deterministic, but remain unpredictable.
Just an aside, there are many good arguments against cause and effect in the systems and dynamical systems literature. In a complex system, there is no cause - at least not as it is traditionally defined.
landfillpoet 1 year ago
O.o I think you are forgetting something. It is unpredictable to us, to our little computer brain, but that does not mean that it can not be predicted. and in science things that should happen do happen, when those things happen, sometimes we just didnt know it could happen. If all things can be predicted its irrelevent what a determinist thinks is random, cause it is predictable by nature.
anonforuz 1 year ago
@anonforuz ok, so you are saying...determinism is contextual based. Outside the context, determinism is undefined..or unpredictable. I don't want to strawman you, just wondering. The basic assumption of determinism, everything is understandable...perfect knowledge. Yet no one, human or god, is capable of perfect knowledge. No one is capable of determinism? I can see truth inside a context...ok...I can see determinism inside a context. I do not see inherent or absolute determinism.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
@ZullGostnu2 put my comment in picture form since i exceeded the character limit.
i43 . tinypic . com/k2jqxk . jpg
anonforuz 1 year ago
Comment removed
anonforuz 1 year ago
Comment removed
anonforuz 1 year ago
Comment removed
anonforuz 1 year ago
@ZullGostnu2 also wanted to say that I dont think determinism or at least my understanding of it is about perfect knowledge. there may be things we just cant know. i think its more just an understanding that things are orderly.
anonforuz 1 year ago
@ZullGostnu2 Look up dynamical systems theory. Dynamical systems are fully deterministic, yet are unpredictable. Further, they can be perturbed into different attractor states, changing the dynamic trajectory of the system. Neural states are such systems.
landfillpoet 1 year ago
@landfillpoet So even with a pretended perfect knowledge, I still can't determine a dynamical system? Would this not disprove determinism? With my small amount of knowledge, many things are indeterminable. It is only when I narrow the context, can I determine anything. I am not a god. I do not have ultimate knowledge. If there is determinism, is this the ultimate truth? I doubt it.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
@ZullGostnu2 Even with perfect knowledge down to the subatomic level, you cannot perfectly predict a dynamical system. The system is fully deterministic, such that at time T1 there is only one possible state for the system at time T2. Predictability has little to do with determinism here - the system's behavior is determined, whether it's behavior can be predicted is another matter entirely. Also, the system has more than one deterministic state into which it can enter...
landfillpoet 1 year ago
@landfillpoet Determinism only deals with the past? Then I fail to understand how determinism disproves the idea of "free will". Or that I can not make unpredictable choices. I see "free will" as a concept like "imaginary numbers". A concept, not a physical object. My idea of free will is the ability to make unpredictable choices. Determinism does not predict the future? It seems others say it does. Are you a determinist? just wondering.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
@ZullGostnu2 Huh? I never said that determinism only deals with the past. Again, don't confound determinism and predictability. Your behaviors are deterministic, but may be unpredictable. Further, theorists have postulated a top-down control over certain elements of the system that might be construed as free will.
Dynamical systems are complex systems, as such explaining them can be difficult, but I think they reconcile the ideas of determinism and "free will" - whatever that is...
landfillpoet 1 year ago
@landfillpoet Ok, my behavior are deterministic, but may be unpredictable...I don't mean to go all newspeak on you... equating determinism with predictable.... I really don't understand...it appears one leads to the other. If I can determine something, I should be able to predict it. Predicting is a future action. If determinism is based on cause and effect and cause is a function of the past, how do you say determinism operates in the future? Determinism works for me in a narrow context
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
Good video, I always has hesitations when thining of Pattons.
tyrantslayer999 1 year ago
Francis Bacon was a torturer?
qtronman 1 year ago
Good video.
qtronman 1 year ago