Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.pagan,alt.atheism,talk.rel
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!dcs.gla.ac.uk!unix.brighton.ac.uk!mjs14
From: mjs14@unix.brighton.ac.uk (shute)
Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
Message-ID: <1994Nov1.110459.4708@unix.brighton.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Brighton, UK
References: <1994Oct13.135253.21576@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <38qhnm$117@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk> <safir.34.00177540@dunedin.es.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 11:04:59 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <safir.34.00177540@dunedin.es.co.nz> safir@dunedin.es.co.nz (Craig Collings) writes:
>I was doubting the validity of the Central Limit Theorem, which is the 
>foundation stone of nearly all parametric statistics. Simply because no-one 
>has ever found any "randomness" lying around. There is nothing which occurs 
>that does not have at least one conditioning factor. 

One man's noise, is another man's PhD  :-)

>It would appear to me that randomness is the inverse of completely ordered 
>pattern. And since an inversion shows the same topology as its original, they 
>are apposite views of the same 'ideal totality'.

That would certainly seem to be born out by the observation that
a perfect crystal lattice has the same (lack of) complexity as
a totally random arrangement.
-- 

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all

