On 4 May, 09:52, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 3, 10:24 pm, n...@webtv.net (The Averdein Building) wrote:
>
> > >What makes an infinite regress 'insane'? What makes
> > > a regress 'infinite'?
>
> > So you're not a fan of parsimony? To each his own.
>
> As the man said, things should be as simple as possible - but not
> simpler.
>
> > >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.
>
> But what is an example of such a simple happening? I know that there
> were some in the sixties, but it took an effort of will to believe
> that they weren't as organised as any table tapping at a seance.
>
> > 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.
>
> True, there are plenty of them, and, though I think they can be fun
> (considering the implications of multiple universes is certainly fun -
> one implication is that we all live forever, though, of course, not in
> all universes) they aren't, as you say, worth taking seriously as
> 'real'.
>
> > >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.
>
> I'm not sure why you suspect me of misrepresentation, though I see
> that you say it is a tired old tactic, so, maybe, you see it lurking
> by some form of projection.
>
> I think, though, that I've represented a pretty simple,
> straightforward point and haven't seen a counter to it. I've no
> conscious knowledge of any intention to mislead anybody or to
> misrepresent anything as something else.


I tend to think of events being random in two different ways --  being
irregular (having no discernible or predictable pattern),  and being
unrelated (statistically independent).  Isn't it possible that certain
events are regular whilst also being statistically independent of all
other events?

Dave