Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You seem to be alluding to the notion of "novel" as creation ex nihilo. Perhaps you should demonstrate an example of it before overreaching into your "therefore"?

No I'm alluding to the novel as being new....independent of what already is or has been.
I suppose this is related to emergence where what is emergent is not found in a simpler organisation of any components.

[Outrider]

No I'm alluding to the novel as being new....independent of what already is or has been.

I think we're all aware of that, we're just curious as to whether you actually can come up with an example for us to think that this is a real thing and not just a conceptual fancy that doesn't actually occur in reality. It's not that your concept is difficult to understand, it's just that it's difficult to accept.

I suppose this is related to emergence where what is emergent is not found in a simpler organisation of any components.

And where is that? Emergent behaviour is where the behaviour is found in the particular combination of components without necessarily being the 'purpose' or original benefit of those components.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you have an example of something new which isn't a combination  of the  pre-existing?

Well several actually, anything that is new, basically.........That's pretty much the whole of history.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No I'm alluding to the novel as being new....independent of what already is or has been.

So that would be a "yes" then - a phenomenon that exists ex nihilo. Why so co about providing an example of it though?

I suppose this is related to emergence where what is emergent is not found in a simpler organisation of any components.

Not really. Emergent properties are different from their constituent parts, but they cannot exist without them - cause and effect again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well several actually, anything that is new, basically.........That's pretty much the whole of history.

Do you want to have another think about that?

[Maeght]

Well several actually, anything that is new, basically.........That's pretty much the whole of history.

Give one example then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think we're all aware of that, we're just curious as to whether you actually can come up with an example for us to think that this is a real thing and not just a conceptual fancy that doesn't actually occur in reality. It's not that your concept is difficult to understand, it's just that it's difficult to accept.

And where is that? Emergent behaviour is where the behaviour is found in the particular combination of components without necessarily being the 'purpose' or original benefit of those components.

O.

Well I'm afraid you also have a burden to demonstrate there is nothing new under the sun. In other words you and the posse need to demonstrate that novelty is just a conceptual fancy is not a conceptual fancy
I would prefer you to be honest and say novelty is an illusion rather than wanting the new and not wanting it at the same time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well I'm afraid you also have a burden to demonstrate there is nothing new under the sun. In other words you and the posse need to demonstrate that novelty is just a conceptual fancy is not a conceptual fancy
I would prefer you to be honest and say novelty is an illusion rather than wanting the new and not wanting it at the same time.

Flat wrong. Again.

You're the one who's claiming "novel" as (apparently) not deterministic - the burden of poof is all yours therefore to demonstrate it.

You get this backwards a lot by the way. If I assert "leprechauns", is the burden of proof with you to demonstrate their non-existence? That's essentially the argument you've just attempted.

[Sebastian Toe]

I would prefer you to be honest and say novelty is an illusion rather than wanting the new and not wanting it at the same time.

Are you saying that novelty is an illusion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Give one example then.

I've just given trillions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've just given trillions.

No you haven't. Name one event "in history" that wasn't a product of cause and effect.

Just one will do.

[floo]

Vlad,

No you haven't. Name one event "in history" that wasn't a product of cause and effect.

Just one will do.

Don't ask for the impossible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Flat wrong. Again.

You're the one who's claiming "novel" as (apparently) not deterministic - the burden of poof is all yours therefore to demonstrate it.

You get this backwards a lot by the way. If I assert "leprechauns", is the burden of proof with you to demonstrate their non-existence? That's essentially the argument you've just attempted.

Am I? I thought I was asking Outrider to demonstrate it was deterministic.
Since you and the posse are acting as though it is I think it's you who have the burden and you are just trying to shift it.

[Walter]

Perhaps I missed it, I don't think I saw an example in there...? You can talk about conceptual 'newness' and its independence from prior phenomena, but unless you can give an example all you have is a concept with no evidentiary basis... and that's far from new.

O.

you didn't miss it . He can't answer , he is stumped All other words he uses as explanation are bluster and misdirection ,  don't fall for it mate

[Outrider]

Well I'm afraid you also have a burden to demonstrate there is nothing new under the sun. In other words you and the posse need to demonstrate that novelty is just a conceptual fancy is not a conceptual fancy.

I've given my definition of novelty, I've given my understanding. You've come up with a different claim - your claim, you'll note - and you've not yet justified or validated your claim. That's the example we're still waiting for - you've made a claim of 'novelty', and we're still waiting for you to justify that claim, to validate that description, to instantiate your description.

We're waiting on you to give us an example.

And, for the record, the use of the negative proof fallacy is noted. Again.

I would prefer you to be honest and say novelty is an illusion rather than wanting the new and not wanting it at the same time.

You can't have it both ways - do you want me to be honest, or do you want me to say what you want to hear?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No you haven't. Name one event "in history" that wasn't a product of cause and effect.

Just one will do.

I'm talking about novelty Hillside. You just seem to be reaching for whatever to engage in dispute it seems.....should I encourage that with my continued presence? Not sure?

[Outrider]

Am I? I thought I was asking Outrider to demonstrate it was deterministic. Since you and the posse are acting as though it is I think it's you who have the burden and you are just trying to shift it.

Do you accept that there are events which are unexpected combinations of prior phenomena? That's what I'm suggesting we define as 'novelty - and note that it's a personal judgment, things are novel to me that others are quite familiar with.

You're suggesting that novelty goes beyond this, that's your claim, and as yet you've failed to give an example.

O.

[Gordon]

I wouldn't have define the new as the unusual or infrequent because a phenomenon can be unusual and infrequent .....and not be new.

You used the term 'novelty', but that isn't a synonym for 'new': so what do you mean by it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you accept that there are events which are unexpected combinations of prior phenomena? That's what I'm suggesting we define as 'novelty - and note that it's a personal judgment,

Can you give an example?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Am I? I thought I was asking Outrider to demonstrate it was deterministic.

No, you claimed a non-deterministic novelty. Outy asked you for an example of it. You failed to provide one.

Since you and the posse...

What "posse"? Playing the victim as a distraction technique won't fix the problem you've given yourself.

... are acting as though it is I think it's you who have the burden and you are just trying to shift it.

You claimed non-deterministic novelty so it's your burden of proof to demonstrate such a thing.

[Outrider]

Can you give an example?

Babbage's Calculating Engine - clockwork was well established, logical mathematics was well established, and Babbage put the two together in a way that no-one else had to come up with the Calculating Engine.

Your turn, any examples on your end?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm talking about novelty Hillside.

No, you're attempting a non-deterministic novelty - a claim different from novelty that's just new or surprising but nonetheless a function of cause and effect.
 

You just seem to be reaching for whatever to engage in dispute it seems.....should I encourage that with my continued presence? Not sure?

No, you should just try to answer a question about a claim you made rather than continually duck and dive so as to avoid the problem you've given yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Your turn, any examples on your end?

Across the evening scrubland a moaning wind approaches. Somewhere in the distance a coyote howls, counterpointed by the manic clanking of a long-abandoned wind chime. Tumbleweed scurries by as if late for an appointment, and a harvest mood peeks from behind the scudding clouds...

...and still answer comes there none. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Babbage's Calculating Engine - clockwork was well established, logical mathematics was well established, and Babbage put the two together in a way that no-one else had to come up with the Calculating Engine.

Your turn, any examples on your end?

O.

I would give the same example. What you would describe as no one else coming up with, I would describe as New. The components are not the calculating machine. There can be no calculation on the components although I guess you could count them.

It could be said that there was a time when logical mathematics was new although we are now into arguments as to whether it comes together or is discovered.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I would give the same example. What you would describe as no one else coming up with as New. The components are not the calculating machine. There can be no calculation on the components although I guess you could count them.

It could be said that there was a time when logical mathematics was new although we are now into arguments as to whether it comes together or is discovered.

That would be 100% deterministic novelty then.

Still, if ever you feel like providing an example of the non-deterministic variety you claimed by all means check back in.