Split from Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology

[Le Repteux]

Not just less precise, it can become plain wrong, counterfactual.

Yes it can, but if it does, it might be no use to us, and if it is, then it means that building up counter facts and remembering them is sometimes helpful. It seems to me that biologic memories always serve the same purpose: continuity of life. Don't you think so?

[Strange]

 

It seems to me that biologic memories always serve the same purpose: continuity of life. Don't you think so?

 

Well it improves learning and hence survival, if that is what you mean.

[Le Repteux]

As memory is very obviously not random (we remember things that actually happen and are more likely to rememebr things that have an emotional impact) can you explain, either:

 

1. What you think the word "random" means?

 

2. In what way you think memory is governed by unpredictable chance events?

As I said, it is not memory that would be random, it is imagination. By random I mean unpredictable. Humans are said unpredictable: where does that expression come if not from the way we change? To better cope with them, we try to predict others behavior, and we do that all the time, no?

 

To me, memory is about our automatisms, and imagination is about changing them. A specie is not able to change by itself, it needs a random process to do so. If, as I think, our ideas are neither able to change by themselves, they would also need a random process to do so. If you could imagine that idea, we could try to carry it a bit further, but since it takes chance to change our own ideas, it should take you some more time to understand what I mean.

Well it improves learning and hence survival, if that is what you mean.

Yes, but since biologic memories are also about genes, I also meant that it helped the survival of a specie, what is also about continuity of life.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

As I said, it is not memory that would be random, it is imagination.

 

I doubt imagination is really random. It is mainly based on past experiences, perhaps combined in novel ways.

 

Humans are said unpredictable: where does that expression come if not from the way we change?

 

It comes from our limited ability to understand the complexities of human nature. Even people with serious mental disorders do not behave randomly.

 

To me, memory is about our automatisms, and imagination is about changing them.

 

So you have managed to drag this thread about whether the study of evolution is science or not back to your favourite topic. Which has been shown to be mistaken in at least two previous threads.

 

If, as I think, our ideas are neither able to change by themselves

 

As has been shown before you are wrong. Ironically, though, you seem unable to learn and change your idee fixe.

 

it should take you some more time to understand what I mean.

 

I understand what you mean. But you are still wrong.

 

Yes, but since biologic memories are also about genes

 

Except they aren't. But you seem unwilling to change your mind about this either.

[Le Repteux]

I doubt imagination is really random. It is mainly based on past experiences, perhaps combined in novel ways.

Combining old genes does not permit a specie to survive to important environmental changes, it also takes mutations.

 

It comes from our limited ability to understand the complexities of human nature. Even people with serious mental disorders do not behave randomly.

Continuity and change are two different viewpoints that we can take on our behaviors, and we cannot take both at a time, but these two properties are nevertheless both present at the same time in our mind. If we focus on randomness, we only see randomness, and if we focus on continuity, we only see continuity, but for life to continue it takes randomness, and for randomness to exist it takes continuity. In other words, we behave part randomly and part continuously. Do you agree?

 

So you have managed to drag this thread about whether the study of evolution is science or not, back to your favorite topic. Which has been shown to be mistaken in at least two previous threads.

Let me decide what is mistaken or not when people discuss my own ideas.

 

As has been shown before you are wrong. Ironically, though, you seem unable to learn and change your idee fixe.

You want to discuss or fight?

 

I understand what you mean. But you are still wrong.

No you did not. I'll tell you when you do.

 

Except they aren't. But you seem unwilling to change your mind about this either.

Minds don't change by force, they change by chance, so be patient and we might happen to get somewhere together.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

 

I doubt imagination is really random.

Combining old genes does not permit a specie to survive to important environmental changes, it also takes mutations.

 

What does recombining genes have to do with imagination?

 

Let me decide what is mistaken or not when people discuss my own ideas.

 

Exactly. You decide you are right, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Le Repteux]

What does recombining genes have to do with imagination?

Recombination is a random process, whether it is ideas or genes.

 

Exactly. You decide you are right, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Lately, I learned that scientific evidence was about facts, not about ideas, but the evidence that you are talking about is about an idea. If we want to get somewhere, lets stick to facts. To me, its a fact that randomness is part of my life, not to you? Can you predict what you will be thinking in a few years? Are you thinking the same as you were ten years ago? If not, and considering what you think of my idea actually, what could change our ideas so drastically sometimes if not a random process?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

To me, its a fact that randomness is part of my life, not to you?

 

Very rarely. I might by a lottery ticket once or twice a year. That's about it.

 

Can you predict what you will be thinking in a few years?

 

No. But I can pretty much guarantee it won't be random. It might be related to a new job, what to eat for dinner, etc. Even if I win that lottery, my thoughts will not be random; I will be planning how to invest the money, which car to buy, etc.

 

Unpredictable but not random. A bit like the weather, me.

 

If not, and considering what you think of my idea actually, what could change our ideas so drastically sometimes if not a random process?

 

External environment, learning new things, changing job, moving to a different country, ...

[swansont]

I sure will do if Johnesteixeira or anybody complains. Are you complaining? As I said, as it is written, the signification of the topic fits exactly my needs.

 

!

Moderator Note

The staff would prefer it if you would follow the rules rather than stopping only when someone complains about it; this includes (but is not limited to) hijacking threads or going off-topic by responding to this modnote.

[Le Repteux]

Thanks for spitting the thread Swansont, and sorry for the trouble.

Very rarely. I might by a lottery ticket once or twice a year. That's about it.

Nice things never happened to you by chance only? You never take a chance in case it would work?

 

No. But I can pretty much guarantee it won't be random. It might be related to a new job, what to eat for dinner, etc. Even if I win that lottery, my thoughts will not be random; I will be planning how to invest the money, which car to buy, etc.

 

Unpredictable but not random. A bit like the weather, me.

How could things be unpredictable without a random process to develop them? How could evolution of a specie be unpredictable without the random process of mutations and natural selection?

 

External environment, learning new things, changing job, moving to a different country, ...

Aren't these things subjected to a random process also? Environment is changing randomly, no? Nothing can predict that we will be able to learn a new thing, no? What makes us change jobs and change places if not external environment that changes constantly? If there was no change to face, would we have to change anything? If our environment would never change, wouldn't a change from an individual be absolutely no use to him?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

Nice things never happened to you by chance only? You never take a chance in case it would work?

 

I don't think they are random.

 

How could things be unpredictable without a random process to develop them?

 

Weather? Entirely deterministic and also unpredictable (in the long term).

 

How could evolution of a specie be unpredictable without the random process of mutations and natural selection?

 

I agree there are random processes involved in that. One of the many things that make it different from either memory or imagination.

 

One could draw an interesting analogy between evolutionary processes, such as selective breeding, and creative thought. For example, the subconscious might try combining lots of different ideas that the mind has accumulated to produce new ideas and then using some sort of selection process to choose those that "survive". If one did that, it would have to acknowledge that it is a very flawed analogy and not to be taken too seriously.

 

Aren't these things subjected to a random process also? Environment is changing randomly, no?

 

No.

 

 

What makes us change jobs and change places if not external environment that changes constantly?

 

My new job is very definitely not random. It is based upon my existing skills and contacts.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Strange

[Le Repteux]

I don't think they are random.

Lets use another analogy: what about elections? There is always a certain amount of uncertainty in the predictions preceding an election: surveys are about probabilities. This global uncertainty comes from individual uncertainties, which change with time depending on the circumstances, and which are unpredictable, thus depend of a random process. To me, compare to the way dictatorship is driven, an election is a random process, because it favors change, not to you?

 

Weather? Entirely deterministic and also unpredictable (in the long term).

How could a phenomenon be unpredictable without containing some kind of random process? Do you mean that tossing a dice is not a random process because we can predict equal chance to obtain any number on the long run?

 

I agree there are random processes involved in that. One of the many things that make it different from either memory or imagination.

 

One could draw an interesting analogy between evolutionary processes, such as selective breeding, and creative thought. For example, the subconscious might try combining lots of different ideas that the mind has accumulated to produce new ideas and then using some sort of selection process to choose those that "survive". If one did that, it would have to acknowledge that it is a very flawed analogy and not to be taken too seriously.

This is not how I think that imagination is the product of a random process. What I think is that it can kind of toss a dime to change an idea randomly, for instance it could change randomly the direction (or the sense) that an old idea had, or it could change its importance randomly, and then it would have to try it for real to check if it works. If it hurts, it should have time to get back to work and change it another way, try it again for real, and keep it if it doesn't hurt anymore. This way, it could learn or invent a new idea faster and more deeply that animals can do.

 

No.

If you think that environment does not change randomly for us, could you accept that it did for animals before we were here?

 

My new job is very definitely not random. It is based upon my existing skills and contacts.

Again, if we do not differentiate properly continuity from change, we won't get anywhere. To me, skills are about memory, thus continuity, and change is about imagination, thus about randomness: can you accept that definition for a while?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

an election is a random process, because it favors change, not to you?

 

Elections are not random. If you poll sufficient people you can predict the result. Even if you don't poll people and you can't predict the result, the outcome is determined by how people vote, therefore not random.

 

A random election would be one where the outcome is determined purely by chance and the votes are irrelevant.

 

How could a phenomenon be unpredictable without containing some kind of random process?

 

"Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.^[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.^[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.^[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

Do you mean that tossing a dice is not a random process because we can predict equal chance to obtain any number on the long run?

 

Although tossing dice and roulette wheels are normally considered random, that is only because it is hard to predict the result. People have won money at roulette by analysing the speed and bounces of the ball and predicting where it will land.

 

If you think that environment does not change randomly for us, could you accept that it did for animals before we were here?

 

Why would that make any difference? The world was just as random or not before humans appeared as it is now.

 

 

Again, if we do not differentiate properly continuity from change

 

Change is independent of whether a system is random or deterministic.

 

can you accept that definition for a while

 

I see no reason to.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Strange

[Le Repteux]

Elections are not random. If you poll sufficient people you can predict the result. Even if you don't poll people and you can't predict the result, the outcome is determined by how people vote, therefore not random.

 

A random election would be one where the outcome is determined purely by chance and the votes are irrelevant.

Again, you are saying that the process I am talking about is only random, and I explained to you twice that randomness needed continuity and vice versa. Think about evolution of species when I talk about randomness: their genes crate continuity, but their mutations crate simultaneously randomness. Both principles of change and continuity are linked in the same process of life.

 

"Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.^[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.^[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.^[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

Same comment: determinism is about continuity and indeterminism is about randomness, but both are needed to make a world.

 

Although tossing dice and roulette wheels are normally considered random, that is only because it is hard to predict the result. People have won money at roulette by analysing the speed and bounces of the ball and predicting where it will land.

Are you about to say that mutations are not random?

 

Why would that make any difference? The world was just as random or not before humans appeared as it is now.

If it is so, we have a contradiction, because, since species are already an environment for the other species, they cannot evolve randomly while their environment does not.

 

Change is independent of whether a system is random or deterministic.

Yet, change would not be possible for a specie without a random process.

 

I see no reason to.

Just for fun, to take a chance, a lottery ticket for free.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

Same comment: determinism is about continuity and indeterminism is about randomness, but both are needed to make a world.

 

I don't really understand the first part (randomness is non-deterministic by definition, but you can also have non-random change) and I don't see why both are needed.

 

Are you about to say that mutations are not random?

 

Some mutations are random.

[Phi for All]

Let me decide what is mistaken or not when people discuss my own ideas.

 

It's hard to believe you posted this here, but it explains why your resistance to reason is so high.

[Le Repteux]

Sorry Phy, I should have added "except if it my ideas are discussed by moderators".

I don't really understand the first part (randomness is non-deterministic by definition, but you can also have non-random change) and I don't see why both are needed.

Again, there is no change in a specie without random change in the genes, which means to me that there might be no change anywhere without a random process to permit it. When two bodies changes direction or speed while hitting each other for instance, there might be a random process to permit it. Nevertheless, once the change has been executed, there is also a continuity process to permit that it is conserved since the two bodies keep their momentum. Without the randomness, no change could happen to the momentum, but without the momentum there would be no way to conserve a change: as you can see, both would also be needed to change a motion.

 

Some mutations are random.

Can you give me an example of a non random mutation?

Edited October 29, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

Sorry Phy, I should have added "except if it my ideas are discussed by moderators".

 

So it is only wrong if you get caught?

 

Again, there is no change in a specie without random change in the genes, which means to me that there might be no change anywhere without a random process to permit it.

 

That appears to be a non sequitur. Not all changes are brought about by genes. Not all changes require random processes. That is pretty obvious. I can turn the steering wheel of my car to chnage the direction of my car. There is nothing random about that. Most things are not random - the majority of the world above the quantum level is deterministic.

 

When two bodies changes direction or speed while hitting each other for instance, there might be a random process to permit it.

 

Have you ever played billiards or snooker? There is nothing random about the way balls change direction and speed.

 

Can you give me an example of a non random mutation?

 

This is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the argument if we assume that all diversity is caused by mutation and all mutation is random (I'm not sure either of those are true).

[Le Repteux]

So it is only wrong if you get caught?

I consider that I am wrong when I feel convinced, not when I feel intimidated, whether it is by participants or by moderators.

 

That appears to be a non sequitur. Not all changes are brought about by genes. Not all changes require random processes. That is pretty obvious. I can turn the steering wheel of my car to change the direction of my car. There is nothing random about that. Most things are not random - the majority of the world above the quantum level is deterministic.

I think you agree that biologic evolution, thus life, is not deterministic. Now, if life had to develop this way, its because things change constantly, in such a way that life had to count on randomness to keep on existing. This randomness comes from atomic scale, whereas life is at molecular scale, and animals at macroscopic scale. The causes of mutation are not random at their own scale, atoms don't behave randomly one before the other, but they may be when they interfere with a larger scale, as for the quantum uncertainty for instance. The butterfly wing beating does not cause randomness at its own scale, but it may at the planet scale.

 

When your car changes direction, the randomness that I am talking about and that permits the change would not happen at its scale, but at the microscopic scale. Since macroscopic bodies change direction, we know that atoms can, but we also know that they would not be supposed to, because they resist a change, nevertheless, they do, and this might be because there is a randomness process going on below their scale, a process that takes time, like the mutation/selection one, a time that could be the cause of the resistance. That way, any change could be a scale effect.

 

Have you ever played billiards or snooker? There is nothing random about the way balls change direction and speed.

Nothing can be absolutely precise. After many bumps, it is impossible to predict the direction of a particular ball, and if it was not so, that game would be useless. Any sport is based on that impossibility, this is what makes them exciting for us. Without randomness in sports, there would not be any sport, and to me, there would not be any society without randomness either, because there would not have been any change in it from its beginning.

 

This is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the argument if we assume that all diversity is caused by mutation and all mutation is random (I'm not sure either of those are true).

What did you mean by "Some mutations are random" ? I thought you meant that all mutations were not random.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

INothing can be absolutely precise. After many bumps, it is impossible to predict the direction of a particular ball, and if it was not so, that game would be useless. Any sport is based on that impossibility, this is what makes them exciting for us. Without randomness in sports, there would not be any sport.

 

I was thinking about this earlier. When I mentioned the lottery, strictly speaking it is not random. It is just unpredictable and so appears random.

 

The UK premium bond prize, on the other hand, really is random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE

 

What did you mean by "Some mutations are random" ? I thought you meant that all mutations were not random.

 

I would only categorise those produced by ionizing radiation as random. Others, such as errors in replication or horizontal gene transfer are just unpredictable (but fully deterministic). But it erally doesn't matter. Your extrapolation to all change being random is just wrong.

 

 

When your car changes direction, the randomness that I am talking about and that permits the change would not happen at its scale, but at the microscopic scale. Since macroscopic bodies change direction, we know that atoms can, but we also know that they would not be supposed to, because they resist a change, nevertheless, they do, and this might be because there is a randomness process going on below their scale, a process that takes time, like the mutation/selection one, a time that could be the cause of the resistance.

 

There is absolutely no need to invoke quantum effects (the only source of real randomness) here. You apply a force and the atoms move. There is, admittedly, a very small chance that the car could suddenly find itself on Titan (*) but that hasn't yet.

 

(*) perhaps due to a chrono-synclastic infundibulum.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Strange

[Le Repteux]

I was thinking about this earlier. When I mentioned the lottery, strictly speaking it is not random. It is just unpredictable and so appears random.

 

The UK premium bond prize, on the other hand, really is random.

If I take your definition of randomness, even the bond prize would not be random, it would only give more complexity to the cause of a phenomenon. If you want to understand what I mean by randomness being a possible cause for change at any scale, you have to stick to the mutation/selection principle, to the effect a random process can have on the continuity of a phenomenon, thus on its existence. If a specie changes without being able to do so by itself, it is because some change happens to its genes, otherwise it would not change, which means that, in some way, it resists to the change that happens in its environment: things change while resisting to that change all the time, why is it so? What I suggest is that it takes time for a random process to produce a change. The essay and error process takes time and its outcome is unpredictable, this is why research is not very common in business, and why pills are so expensive.

 

I would only categorize those produced by ionizing radiation as random. Others, such as errors in replication or horizontal gene transfer are just unpredictable (but fully deterministic). But it really doesn't matter. Your extrapolation to all change being random is just wrong.

Again, your definition of randomness stands on the precision of a prediction, whereas mine stands on the change a random process could produce. An individual does not measure the chances he had to get a particular mutation, he uses it as long as he can, and reproduces it if he can.

 

There is absolutely no need to invoke quantum effects (the only source of real randomness) here. You apply a force and the atoms move.

I did not want to show that quantum uncertainty was certainly the cause for change in the direction and speed of a body, but that random processes were a scale effect. To me, there should not be more uncertainty between atoms than between macroscopic bodies, but from us to them, it seems to be the case.

 

A change from its environment is also a force applied to a specie, but this specie does not change automatically, it needs chance. I am presently applying a force on your ideas, but they will not change just because I want them to, it also takes chance for them to change. What kind of chance? How could a random process happen in our mind? If it did, how could we be unable to notice it?

Edited October 29, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

If I take your definition of randomness, even the bond prize would not be random

 

Nope. Some things really are random.

 

Again, your definition of randomness stands on the precision of a prediction

 

No, I am trying to explain that there is a difference between unpredictable and random.

 

I did not want to show that quantum uncertainty was certainly the cause for change in the direction and speed of a body, but that random processes were a scale effect. To me, there should not be more uncertainty between atoms than between macroscopic bodies, but from us to them, it seems to be the case.

 

Then scale is irrelevant. You push a car and it moves in a predictable way. You push a molecule and it moves in a predictable way. This is purely deterministic. Randomness has nothing to do with it.

 

A change from its environment is also a force applied to a specie, but this specie does not change automatically, it needs chance.

 

Why does it need chance. Newtons laws of motion do not include a probabilistic term. You push, you get acceleration. Completely mechanical, deterministic and predictable. There is no room for randomness in that. Repeated assertions will not change that.

 

Where does randomness or probability come into F = ma?

 

I am presently applying a force on your ideas

 

No you aren't.

 

You are making baseless assertions. I think they are unlikely to change my opinion.

[Le Repteux]

Nope. Some things really are random.

...

No, I am trying to explain that there is a difference between unpredictable and random.

No need to make such a difference for the mutation/selection process. If such a process is useful to evolution of species, it might be useful to evolution of anything that faces change, and all the universe is changing all the time, so why not try to apply it to different changes and see what happens? As you can see, if you don't care to try, we won't get anywhere. What are you afraid of: losing your mind, you integrity, your reputation, what...? You said that you didn't like to take chances, is it the only reason?

 

Then scale is irrelevant. You push a car and it moves in a predictable way. You push a molecule and it moves in a predictable way. This is purely deterministic. Randomness has nothing to do with it.

...

Why does it need chance. Newtons laws of motion do not include a probabilistic term. You push, you get acceleration. Completely mechanical, deterministic and predictable. There is no room for randomness in that. Repeated assertions will not change that.

 

Where does randomness or probability come into F = ma?

Good comment! You are right, there is a big difference between change occurring to a specie and change occurring to a body: the first one is unpredictable while, up to a certain point, the other one is. Let me paint a picture of the different evolutions.The differences in evolutionary processes reside in the duration of the trial and error process compared to the duration of the change in the environment, and on the way the trials are made and selected. For large species, there is numerous trials occurring simultaneously, and their duration is counted in years. For our mind, there is only one essay at a time, and its duration is counted in days.

 

For a macroscopic body, each of its atoms have to change almost simultaneously, and the duration of these changes is counted in femtoseconds. For only one atom, who knows what has to change, but the duration of this change must be incredibly fast. Quantum data show that this change is unpredictable for one atom, but they also show that it becomes predictable in the long run or if numerous trials are made, which explains macroscopic behavior since numerous atoms are involved. These surprising data have brought scientists ideas to their limit, and created controversies between them. If my theory about motion is a bit right, it might help us to better understand quantum effects.

No you aren't.

You are making baseless assertions. I think they are unlikely to change my opinion.

OK then, let me reverse the example: lets admit that you are presently applying a force on my ideas, but that they will not change just because you want them to, so, since we both know that our ideas change with time, what is going to change mine: only time? Time is a concept, it cannot be only time.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

What are you afraid of

 

Huh?

What are you afraid of?

 

Good comment! You are right, there is a big difference between change occurring to a specie and change occurring to a body: the first one is unpredictable while, up to a certain point, the other one is.

 

I was pointing out that there is NO difference. If you push something it moves. Purely deterministic and mechanical. No randomness required.

 

For a macroscopic body, each of its atoms have to change almost simultaneously

 

Why?

 

OK then, let me reverse the example: lets admit that you are presently applying a force on my ideas

 

No I am not. How can you apply a force to an idea.

 

what is going to change mine?

 

Based on past evidence, nothing at all. Even concrete evidence that you are wrong doesn't change your mind.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Strange

[Le Repteux]

Huh?

What are you afraid of?

Losing my mind, my integrity, my reputation, ... but not to take chances!

 

I was pointing out that there is NO difference. If you push something it moves. Purely deterministic and mechanical. No randomness required.

I gave a second though to that comparison between living and inert bodies while awaking this morning. You raised an important point yesterday, and I should be able to answer it thoroughly if that idea about change applies to both. There is two directions we can look at from our own viewpoint: where we come from and where we are going to, and it is the same for anything we can think of. We know that evolution of species come from mutations being selected by environment, because we know that environment has more effect on species than the inverse, and also because we know that species cannot voluntarily chose a change. But we cannot predict how a particular specie is going to change because it depends on random mutations and on a complex selection process. What is predictable though is the way it will behave if it can change its habits without having to change its genetics. We know that animals can change territories this way, we know that plants can change habitats, and we know that they will chose the ones that fit their needs, so we can predict which ones if we know their needs and we know the potential territories.

 

Without genetic changes, changing places for living bodies seems similar to changing directions for inert bodies: both have no other choice but to keep on going, both have no other choice to go away, and both chose the direction that suits their needs after a while. But how could we apply the example of a genetic change to an atom? Are atoms affected the same way species are if drastic changes happen in their environment? The Big-bang theory is about how atoms are born and how they have evolved, but it does not tell us how randomness has been part of the process at each drastic changes. Some scientists even say that the constants could have been selected before the big-bang has happened. We avoid to take chances in our everyday choices when it prevents us from doing what we want, but we use it when it can help us so. We have a schizophrenic way to play with chance, and I think that we have the same kind of way about the idea of chance. Chance is about freedom of mind, but mind is not that free to talk about it.

 

Why?

Simply because they are part of the same homogeneous body. (By the way, how can I interlock citations here?)

 

No I am not. How can you apply a force to an idea.

Its a psychological force, of course, which opposes the psychological resistance we offer to change.

 

Based on past evidence, nothing at all. Even concrete evidence that you are wrong doesn't change your mind.

What about chance then? Why chance would not be able to produce our psychological changes?