Re: Theory of Everything, determinism

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

John M.,

I am not sure I follow you. Do you really believe in
perfect causal determinism? Is this the same as a
closed system, as in closed deterministic past, present,
future? I believe in open determinism (oxymoron?) or
open causality, as in true novelty, surprise, new laws
all can be born, emerge, arise any where, at any scale,
at any time.

Also, if you say there are other universes beyond our
reach, what pragmatic good are they or talk about
them? If no interaction at all, either direction, is this
not the same as "non-existent" in practical matters?

How do these last comments relate to your idea of
pan-sensitivity (my favorite idea of yours that I know
of) if at all?

Please help me clarify these...

Dan

John M wrote:

> This is the 'other' John:
>
> Dan, there may be 'other ways' in theorizing. We may find insufficient
> explanations/ideas - so a betterment may be in order. However:
> when it comes to 'nature' (existence, wholeness, universe, whatever
> is your favorite semantical beef) there are NO alternative chances:
> whatever the TOTAL interconnectedness facilitates (most push, least
> resistance) - does happen. Indeterminism is only in our ignorance to compose
> the 'final' model instead of omittances in our practical modeling.
>
> There are no "parallel" possibilities: otherwise there would be a parallel
> ecology, biology, physics, life, etc. different from what we know. Nature
> works in perfect cuasal determinism - result of the unlimited and total
> interconnectedness ie. everything (observable or not) interplaying
> (not the reductionistic so called 'causality' of boundary-restricted chosen
> models of selected "causes").
>
> Opposing argument: there are variants out of whack, which perish in
> the survival-game (cf: evolution). Those variants also occurred within the
> pressure-inhibition balance of the 'total': the (deterministic) changes
> are not limited to the successful ones. But: no alternate ways, just
> fitting and non fitting into the similarly changing environment.
> Unless we consider 'other' universes beyond our reach (what I do).
>
> It is hard to clean up attractive thoughts.
> I hope the above remarks are OK?
>
> Best
>
> John M