On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 20:47:43 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 19:43:08 -0700, David Johnston
>><davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-12-10 10:05 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:18:03 -0700, David Johnston
>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
>>>>>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>>>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>>>>> changing the present by doing something
>>>>>> small,
>>>>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>>>>> they can radically change the future by
>>>>>> doing something small"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dude...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Radically change the future from what?
>>>>
>>>> From what it would otherwise have been, of course.
>>>>
>>>> People who choose /not/ to commit crimes rarely find themselves in
>>>> jail. Well, in sane countries, anyway.
>>>
>>>Is committing a jailable offense something small?
>>
>>Many misdemeanors are. That's why they aren't felonies.
>>
>>Do you /really/ want to descend into the semantic goo of what offenses
>>are small and what are not?
>
>Surely it was "small change of the future", not "small crime" that was
>in question...

Except, of course, that my point was that whether or not a person goes
to jail for committing a crime is /not/ a random event. Ideally, it
isn't even a chaotic event. But it /does/ occur in the future, from
the perspective of when the crime was committed.

Sadly, his response otherpost shows no understanding of what I was
saying at all. He appears to now believe it is the "going to jail"
that produces the future changes. This, it seems to me, can only lead
to confusing the issue enough to make "random" appear mean the same
thing as "chaotic" or even "fully determined". Semantic goo indeed!

At least Quaddie was able to respond clearly enough to make it
apparent that he is confusing "random" (the term he used) with
"chaotic" (the term he thought he used).
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 10:55:07 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 12/11/2022 9:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 19:43:08 -0700, David Johnston
>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-12-10 10:05 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:18:03 -0700, David Johnston
>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
>>>>>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>>>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>>>>> changing the present by doing something
>>>>>> small,
>>>>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>>>>> they can radically change the future by
>>>>>> doing something small"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dude...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Radically change the future from what?
>>>>
>>>> From what it would otherwise have been, of course.
>>>>
>>>> People who choose /not/ to commit crimes rarely find themselves in
>>>> jail. Well, in sane countries, anyway.
>>>
>>> Is committing a jailable offense something small?
>>
>> Many misdemeanors are. That's why they aren't felonies.
>>
>> Do you /really/ want to descend into the semantic goo of what offenses
>> are small and what are not?
>
>Don't forget to include prosecutorial discretion in there.

Which, of course, is also /not random/, at least ideally.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 11:32:39 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 17:53:17 UTC, a425couple wrote:
>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>
>> "When people speak of traveling to
>> the past, they worry about radically
>> changing the present by doing something
>> small,
>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>> they can radically change the future by
>> doing something small"
>
>Can someone remind me what story involves
>making history good by changing a small thing
>in the past - maybe the story's past instead of the
>past-past. Actually, I don't recall seeing a story
>where changing existing well-known history by
>time travel improves things. Usually it gets
>worse and someone has to change it back.

Well, if it didn't, there wouldn't be a story.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 10:21:28 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> Ah, I see: you are confusing "chaotic" with "random".
>
> "chaotic" means "fully determined, but we don't have the ability to
> predict what will happen and may never have[1]".

Since the roll of a die is "chaotic" rather than "random" by the distinction
you are making, I think it's reasonable to claim that this is an insignificant
distinction. The changes to the distant future from small actions in the
present are _effectively_ random.

Of course, _when_ something is chaotic, it usually is also truly random, since
if it can be disturbed by very small effects, then included among the disturbances
will be truly random inputs from quantum sources... but that's far from the real
issue.

Basically, not only can the results of chaotic processes not be calculated, but
the initial conditions required for such a calculation... can't be _measured_ to
the required accuracy in practice.

John Savard

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 9:51:20 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> At least Quaddie was able to respond clearly enough to make it
> apparent that he is confusing "random" (the term he used) with
> "chaotic" (the term he thought he used).

You can look at it that way.

I would think that the ordinary use of the word "random" _includes_
the chaotic, not merely that which can be _proven_ non-deterministic
due to the involvement of quantum mechanics.

Dice, roulette wheels, and so on... are all chaotic, not random in your
sense. However, the numbers they produce are generally regarded as
random. The distinction was not relevant to the point I was seeking to
make, and so I did not complicate my post by attempting to explain
chaos theory.

John Savard

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 9:51:20 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > At least Quaddie was able to respond clearly enough to make it
> > apparent that he is confusing "random" (the term he used) with
> > "chaotic" (the term he thought he used).

> Dice, roulette wheels, and so on... are all chaotic, not random in your
> sense.

Now I see the problem. To anyone to whom the distinction between
"chaotic" and "random" is significant, I would have thought it would be
obvious in the _original_ post that I was speaking of things that would
be classed as chaotic.

I was using the more common term "random" in its ordinary sense.

Your criticism would be appropriate if what you were criticizing was,
say, a scientific paper concerning theoretical physics. That is the
context in which such a distinction is meaningful; it is _not_ in a
non-technical discussion.

John Savard