The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 202
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
1. The past is the result of successive measurements of system parameters. It is one.
And the fact that knowing the governing equations it is possible to restore the past and future states of the system (multivariate) is not reality, but its modelling. Randomness is just for modelling. It does not exist in reality))
1. It is only quantum mechanical representations that are the model of the world.
2. Slava, have you seen reality yourself? Mankind is still capable of nothing more than modelling it.
And with modelling, which is tied to a finite number (even a countable number) of describing equations, there is no way to unambiguously describe the past. This is because, from the "modeller's" point of view, there is at least a continuum of possibilities.
1. Sort of. Close to what I wanted to convey. // Well, except, of course, for a frank dose of zen silliness designed to concentrate attention in the present.
2. About the plurality of the past, you might question it. // Although looking at the ubiquitous tradition of the philistine "historians", one could give up all doubts. :)
...
3. // Is the paternal sperm and maternal egg, which you suggested to be the cause of my existence, even 0.0001% guilty of my writing this post on this forum ? ??
It seems to me that the commonly held notions of causality are very cheesy and stretched on a lot of bubbles of mental assumptions, most of which are based on nothing but simplifying myths. Their purpose (if I may say so about unconscious motivations) is simply to "straighten" and simplify mental models of causality, to make it (causality) less frightening in its explosive multi-connectedness.
1. I wasn't trying to mock you, but simply, like you, set the imagination free a bit. Just don't confuse it with fantasy.
In all seriousness, look at what normal scientists do. They take a certain state, which can be considered definite (conditional "present", the same tourniquet) - and begin to dance from it. And in their modeling they move where it is necessary - in the past or in the future. So, there is a distinguished role of the "conditional present".
2. I'm not talking about history at all, it's not science. All our scientific knowledge about the past (not a year ago, but say, a couple of million or more) is our models. No model can claim to fully explain nature - not now, not in a billion years.
3. I wasn't talking about you, MD, but about your body. And to your body the paternal sperm and the maternal egg, according to modern concepts, have a direct relation. Or are you going to have doubts here as well?
But speaking of you, those cells don't seem to have much to do with you . Knowledge about the human spirit and its relationship to the material universe is too fragmentary and not science at all.
1. I wasn't trying to sneer, just like you to free up a little fantasy. Just don't confuse it with fantasy.
No, about the silliness, I mean me.
In all seriousness, look at what normal scientists do. They take a certain state, which can be considered definite (conditional "present", the same tourniquet) - and begin to dance from it. And in their modeling they move where it is necessary - in the past or in the future. So, there is a distinguished role of the "conditional present".
3. I wasn't talking about you, MD, but about your body. And to your body the paternal sperm and the maternal egg, according to modern concepts, have a direct relation. Or are you going to have doubts here as well?
But as far as you are concerned, these cells seem to have almost nothing to do with you . Knowledge about the human spirit and its relationship to the material universe is too fragmentary and is not science at all.
... Slava, have you seen the reality yourself...?
Let me guess. Cybernetic?
Well yes, a decent attempt. But reducing thinking functions to regulatory functions is perhaps too much. Perhaps I haven't grasped it enough yet.
Let me guess. Cybernetic?
Well, yes, it's a worthy attempt. But reducing thought functions to regulatory functions is a bit of an overreaction. Maybe I'm not getting it right yet.
Why not? I like to "shave my head" with Occam's razor. Purely practical personal experience - it's extraordinarily difficult to cut yourself with. I recommend it.
But, it is impossible to create anything new.
What's up, namesake...
What about quantum mechanics? Or STO together with the GTR?
Yeah, who can argue, it's a very good tool. And given the current state of science, one of the most adequate. From what I have read in Bateson (and I haven't read much - only what you've discounted), I like everything. But it does strain the brain in a concrete way.
imho: I don't believe that Spirit (not I, not Personality, not Self, not It, etc.) is a product of matter. But I'm not going to convince you of that.
What's up, namesake...
What about quantum mechanics? Or STO together with GTR?
Giving. Quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity are unshaven.
By golly, even Einstein himself protested against what he thought was an incomplete description offered by quantum mechanics. That is, in fact, he wanted to add something else to it (from the axioms), so that his famous argument ("God does not play dice") would not happen. And where is it unshaven?!