🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1862@hub.ucsb.edu> silber@sbphy.ucsb.edu writes:
>...If we know that the sequence
>was generated by an 'algorithm', then it is PSEUDO-random.  However,

Is this a cop-out?  Why say pseudo-random, we know it's not even close
to random -- that randomness cannot even be achieved.

>the sequence corresponding to the motivating physical phenomenon (whose
>pattern cannot be generated by any algorithm known to us) is
>of a different epistemological order, viz. 'RANDOM'. 

First, this seems like a bit of a leap.  The fact of a different level
of analysis does not in itself justify the assumption of randomness,
especially if you're correct in your later statement about the realm of
partial knowledge.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "motivating physical phen."  Are
you alluding to some physical basis for consciousness, which has roots
in random behaviour?  Oris this an allusion to Neo-Darwinism?  I'm in a
fog;  but that's no doubt my fault.

Still, how could we think consequtively, if the mind and its evolution
were not guided by some algorithm that we have yet to discern;  an
algorithm that might even allow for randomness and non-rational forms of
knowledge... But an algorithm nevertheless.  That is, order and law, at
the foundation.

> We can never
>transcend the realm of partial knowledge, and even if we believe that
>on some ultimate scale everything is pseudo-random, we can't prove it.

If we are doomed to partial knowledge, why take any position at all, as
is implied in the continued usage of the term "pseudo-random".

Actually, even our partial knowledge seems to point always to the
underlying order and law that is the basis of any functioning system,
whether a machine, a human, or a universe.

Here's an interesting story... (I think)...  In 1967, a few
mathematicians and biologists were chatting over a picnic lunch
organised by Victor Weisskopf, prof. of physics at MIT.  A "weird"
discussion took place as the conversation turned to the subject of
evolution by natural selection.  The mathematicians were stunned by
the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by
chance.  The wide rift between the participants led them to organise a
conference on "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of
Evolution"...(skip to the conference)...  which opened with a paper by
Murray Eden, Prof. of Electrical Engineering at MIT, entitled "The
Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory".  Eden
showed that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an
adaptive change, this would occur by chance only once in a billion
years --while, if two dozen genes were involved, it would require
10,000,000,000 years, which is much longer than the age of the earth.
(See Gordon R. Taylor's "The Great Evolution Mystery").  "Since
evolution does occur and has occured, something more than chance
mutation must be involved."

With all best wishes,
-Phil