Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
I was speaking with a member of the forum in chat the other day, and he was convinced that reason was a calm, pleasant manner of speaking with an intellectual opponent. I was admittedly concerned.
Since a dictionary was referenced, I imagine few people will disagree.
I was, however, more...
(shrugs) I've tried to be clear. Here's a summary:
Physicality has a compliment.
CA has two necessary parts: a propagating seed and unchanging rules by which the seed propagates.
The unchanging rules of propagation are the compliment the dynamic aspect of reality.
You suppose the rules must also...
Keep the speculation about my intentions to yourself? Thanks.
The CA model supposes the laws are unchanging, localized instructions that propagate cells as an internal clock ticks away.
The rules are "absolute" because they stay the same throughout the course of the system. They "govern...
Because the implication is that causality is governed by an absolute. As I said, though this is an apparent duality between "seed" and "rule", it is not from this that I suppose "dualism" in the manner you've been trying to get at.
The video was speaking about free will in concert with...
I told you, I do not derive dualism from cellular automata.
That is your conjecture.
Again, there is a misunderstanding here. Like I said, my discussion of dualism can only come after a discussion of free will, not Wolfram.
My discussion of dualism in my response to WayOfTheBastard has little to do with the apparent duality of the rules and seeds of cellular automata.
Still, there seems to be some misunderstanding besides this. As Wolfram said at the beginning of his lecture on "A New Science," nobody is...
The questions here are not assuming the full range of possibilities. I made a video on this, if you're interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXEO31lbZsc
you can skip to about 1:15
Such is not a tautology. One needn't assume physical causality (such as, the antibiotic "caused" the bacterium to weaken and die) is the same as, say, rational causality (such as, a premise that "causes" a conclusion to be false).
If we assume lawfulness in reason, we can still speak about...