"Stephen Harris"  wrote 

> > > Without getting into the issue of whether events 
> > > in the universe are really random,
> >
> > If you are unwilling to confront this issue then it
> > is unlikely that you will ever escape the psychological,
> > gravitational pull of the gambler's fallacy.
> >
> 
> I submitted a long post which dealt with this issue which is rather
> esoteric.
> Succinctly, it doesn't matter whether the events in the universe are truly
> random or arise the lack of human knowledge due to the inability to make
> exact determinations.

I disagree.  It does matter.  In fact that is the reason 
we are even discussing this.  

> As you said random is a human concept which is
> used as a description for some mechanical processes, it is not the cause
> of them. So what remains is the human, in principle, inability to accumulate
> sufficient knowledge to make certain determinations.

You and I (and Einstein) agree on the factual aspects 
of the phenomena.  But this is a different issue than 
the one raised in your first paragraph above, IMO it 
does "matter" whether you assume it represents the 
limits of measurement or a source of true randomness 
(stochasticity).  More to the point, those that assume 
"true randomness" (stochasticity) are unwittingly 
taking a spriritualistic position, IMO.

> 
> > > > > > JMcG:-
> > > > > > It's silly to suggest that "chance"
can be causal.
> 
> Chance is description of a mechanistic event. Due to chance means
> that the event is not fully known or determined not that chance
> caused it.

Right.

 Your writing appears to assume that somebody meant
> chance caused it rather than the event has chance as an adjective.

Not *my* writing.  I think you mean Joe's writing.

> That is why events in the universe are really random doesn't matter.
> "Due to chance" does not mean caused by a universal force.

I agree.  But you're preaching to the choir here.

> Chance
> is a description which characterizes certain events which arise from
> the interplay of forces/energy, and matter over a period of time.
> The problem with dragging HUP into this is than the quantum description
> does not basically involve time, transitions are instantaneous.

Genetic drift also involves time.  The only thing distinctive about
HUP is that it clearly delineates the limits of determination that are
intrinsic to physical matter.  With biological phenomena the
boundaries are not clear, or not yet.

> The law
> of cause and effect unfolds over time. Time is introduced in the
> Schroedinger Equation which blends the quantum theory to classical
> reality. At this point quantum theory is not universal and dwells on
> explaining the microscosm. It is better I think, to use the Penrose
> formulation of HUP which is that at the moment of the big bang
> particles were released into the universe with jillions of trajectories
> which are not knowable over the course of billions of years so that
> position of a particle cannot be exactly calculated since the particles
> which could impact it and change its trajectory are beyond knowledge.
> 
> Even if there were a genuine random "force" of nature what
it would produce
> would be indistinguishable from human inability to acquire total knowledge
> in order to make a "certain" prediction. Since you assert
two possibilities,
> can you mention an outcome of your assertion:

I think you're misreading me.

> 
> > > Entropy is testable.  But the supposition that it is,
> > > "due to chance," is untestable unless one first specifies
> > > whether they consider chance to be a force of nature or a
> > > consequence of our inability to measure reality to 100%
> > > certainty.
> > >
> 
> Suppose chance is a force of nature. What is actual consequence
> of this premise that makes entropy untestable? Why would such
> a premise produce an observable outcome which differed from
> what we would see because of our "inability to measue reality"?
> I think our observations would perceive the same output reality
> regardless of our ontological speculations about the nature of reality.

I agree.  This is the reason it's untestable.

> I think considering radioactive decay is a better example to use
> than entropy since entropy has several meanings.

Yes.  Unfortunately.  (This is probably the source of the discrepancy
above.)

> 
> > > It really doesn't matter whether the genetic drift is
> > > a function of our not knowing the exact state of the universe, or
>  whether
> > > it somehow is a consequence of quantum mechanical randomness.
> > >
> 
> My meaning is full agreement with the above statement.

They are the same difference.

> 
> > > McGinn has presented no argument that using binomial (coint tossing)
>  type
> > > probability arguments is a poor description of genetic drift.  One can
>  infer
> > > from the evidence above that he thinks that the outcomes of
the "tosses"
> > > are not independent.  If they are positively related (as in the boxer
>  case
> > > above that he cites) then even more gene frequency change will occur
>  than
> > > imagined by genetic drift calculations.
> > >
> 
> I am not sure of this paragraph. I think he thinks the coin tosses are
> independent. Flipping 50 heads doesn't mean a tail is coming. I think
> he is questioning Bayesian probability, its application and foundation.

?

> 
> > >
> > > Note that we're not discussing whether genetic drift
"is causal",
> >
> > Well, I won't pretend to speak for you, but this was
> > the subject I was discussing.  (Uh, so.  What about it,
> > Joe?  Do you still maintain that genetic drift is causal?
> > [For what it's worth, I'm under no illusion that I will
> > actually get an answer to this question.  Not now.
> > Not ever.])
> >
> 
> Genetic drift is a term used to describe the physical change in the
> phenotype.

Exactly.  It's an OBSERVATION.

> The process described is mechanistic, it is physical.

It's not a process!  It's an observation.  I think you are displaying
the problem here.  You are employing "process" and "observation"
interchangeably.

> The process of fixing a trend of genetic drift has to be causal.

Yes, the "process" is called natural selection.

> The word chance or random is applied to the ability to predict
> such a series of events beforehand. It describes some path out
> of many paths possible that was selected (not in a purposive sense)
> which was not driven by natual selection.

If I was to ask you to prove that any observations of genetic drift
are not part and parcel to natural selection you would be unable to do
so.

> Natural selection is
> causal in an expanded sense because certain genes have a higher
> chance of being passed onto offspring due to reproductive success.

Gambler's fallacy.

> Mutations and natural selection both occur mechanistically and are
> physical processes. That is one meaning of causal. Another better
> word for a trend or direction to evolution is determined. The word
> causal is sometimes intended or interpreted to mean determined
> but that can cause confusion. "Due to chance" does not mean
> determined as in consistenly in one direction, but that chance is a way
> of describing unpredictable results. The results themselves are
> manifested through cause and effect; random means no particular
> pattern is assigned to unfolding of reality in a mechanistic process.
> 
> I think Jim McGinn understood the phrase "due to chance" in a
> non-standward way. Whether the most intense type of chaos is
> truly random and a force of nature is an issue not needed. I think that
> Jim considers "causal" to be synonamous with a deterministic
direction.

You were doing really good right up until you assumed 
genetic drift is a process and not just an observation.  
Then you gave in to the psychological pull of the 
gambler's fallacy.

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/24/03 9:07:04 PM