>The South African phrase 'Ja, well, no, fine' comes
> to mind. You quote Carnap, but I think he wasn't
> much given to mysticism. 


??? Shouldn't expect a reason for a non sequitur, but I especially can't
fathom why this one (mysticism) would even cross your mind in regard to
logical positivism or that era of Philosophy of Science. It's form is
similar to saying: "You quote Donald Trump, but I don't think he was
anti-capitalist." 

Plus the quote was to support pursuit of your possibility of "hidden
variables" (at least as a potentially useful or functional descriptions
[nonrealism]). 


>What makes an infinite regress 'insane'? What makes
> a regress 'infinite'? 


So you're not a fan of parsimony? To each his own. 


>Why roll over and die with mystical 'miracle
> regularities', when you have the alternative of
> explanation? 


Mysticism again? At least the source of this has been revealed. The
"occult" and scientific realism have two things in common from the
standpoint that they "can" both concern entities not visible in routine
perception being an explanation for events. By "miracle regularities" I
did not mean either, but rather lawful-like events of experience that
are foundational (simply happen, "float on their own") without hidden
causes. That is, no further endless(?) substrates, whether natural or
supernatural, from which they or their appearances emerged. 

If any proposed explanatory postulations about empricial / measurable
regularities were proposed that espoused theoretical entities or
conditions (like higher dimensions, parallel universes, superstrings,
etc) these would not be taken to be literally real, but only
descriptive, useful or pragmatic (if the latter panned-out). There are
multiple metaphysical interpretations of quantum physics --a
circumstance almost reminiscent of the point that Kant tried to make
with his antinomies; so apart from the question of whether any of them
is useful, an antirealist or nonrealist stance is applicable. 


>You have, I think, missed the point of my
> first posting. 


You make references to mysticism and feel that I (ONLY) could have
missed what a post concerned???!!! But I'll grant this is understandable
from your POV since I may be one of the few people on the planet who'd
use "miracle" or "miraculous" with the intention that Strawson sometimes
does. So apologies on my part if this truly isn't the tired, old tactic
of misrepresentation that you're engaging in.


>The notion of a 'random' or, alternatively,
> 'uncaused' result that nevertheess
> shows statistical regularity is a
> nonsensical one. There is no need to
> ponder any QM or other reality, the
> mathematics is sound. 


If you're not venturing "hidden variables" from a scientific (or entity)
realist stance, then I don't have an issue with you about it (was
waiting for that to be clarified further). 

We can constructively devise underlying "explanations" without
dogmatically attributing literal existence to them. But if this had
instead within the context of realism, I'd have a distaste for the idea
of an infinite parade of stratums of new entities to explain former
ones. Unending boxes (causes) within boxes (causes) is akin to
mysticism, IMO (more endless unknowns / mysteries remaining at any stage
of postulation / investigation). 


>If there is a statistical regularity, then
> there is a cause for it - even if it might
> be experimental error. There is no room
> for an uncaused statistical regularity
> anywhere apart from the realm of
> magic. 


How could "uncaused" apply if there was a magic realm responsible
(occult forces, occult personhoods, etc)? I take it that you're using
traditional meanings for "magic" rather than my unconventional
"Foundational, axiomatic, the buck stops here when it comes to
explanations" concerning "miracle regularities". Which would not be
augmented with any metempirical "realms" or "entities" of either
supernatural or natural being. 


>If it's magic that you're keen on, then I think
> conversations with witches should be more your aim
> rather than conversations with rational people. 


What a charming degree of judgemental and misguided arrogance you keep
releasing. Your penchant for projecting misrepresentations into posts
suggests that you're the one who could feel right at home in a group of
witches, creationists, etc. But as I alluded earlier, this may not have
been deliberate on your part and I'll accept the blame for the
misunderstanding if such is the case. 

~~~Drew

=ATTENTION= This is a shared internet device (non-PC). Post a response
whenever possible. Do not reply by email unless the sender supplied an
alternative address in the body. Failure to heed this advice could
result in a message being inadvertently read or deleted by other than
the intended party. Only responsible personnel affected by recent
habitat restrictions have been granted access. 

_ _ _ :-) Thanks, 
_ _ _  the assistant admonitor