determinism

Now here is an amazing account of double talk and blarney passing itself off as science. Wolpert did not “logically proved” anything. We are back to the professor who asked the student, ‘do you believe that there are no absolutes?’. The reply was, “Absolutely!”.

If Wolpert proved that two humans can not be strongly inferred from each other, his proooof is pooooof. And his assumption that a human is an inference ‘machine’ is manifested to be just that, an assumption. What IS science? It is people …… ah right, it is people. “It is a central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or observation. scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.” Derived from our experiences… Ours ! People’s. Human.

Reading closely, Wolpert proved that science can not possibly be the Only way to understand the world ! ! Reading closely would show that the claim that “science remains ‘by far’ the best way” is absurd. Two inference machines (humans) can not be inferred from each other, that is, what you say proves nothing because the other machine might say / will say something different and there is no way to prove which one is right ! Back to the absolutes (just to spell it out for the logically minded) if there are no absolutes then said student can not possibly believe that there are none absolutely.

Absolutely !

“ First, science still remains by far the best (one could argue the only) way to understand the world, and the fact that its power is limited by the characteristics of the human mind, those of the physical universe, and by the laws of logic is just something that we have to live with. No "alternative" approach has come even close to doing any better.
Second, it is a scientist — not a parapsychologist, a creationist or a mystic — who has demonstrated the new theorem, which both reinforces the point that alternative forms of knowledge about the world don't actually produce knowledge and that scientists, unlike practitioners of nonsense, relish the challenges posed by the world as it really is, as opposed to how we would wish it to be.
Besides, the next time you hear a pseudoscientist blabber about quantum telepathy, ask him if he knows about Wolpert's theorem — and savor the blank stare that will surely follow.
Basically, Wolpert — building on previous work by Alan Turing — formalized a description of "inference machines," i.e. machines capable of arriving at inferences about the world (human beings are one example of such machines). Wolpert focused on what he calls strong inference, the ability of one machine to predict the totality of conclusions arrived at by another similar machine. Wolpert then logically proved the following two conclusions: a) For every machine capable of conducting strong inferences on the totality of the laws of physics there will be a second machine that cannot be strongly inferred from the first one; b) Given any pair of such machines, they cannot be strongly inferred from each other.
this means that there are absolute, logical limits to the ability of any method for acquiring knowledge (including, obviously, human science) to produce a comprehensive theory of the world — i.e., no true theory of everything is actually possible, say bye bye to Laplace's Demon, and by implication to the idea of determinism. ”

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. (In religion, God would be the First Cause without which one would have to trace the ‘chain of prior occurrences’ back to infinity.)

If this, Wolpert's therom, is not determinism then what does all that determined effort to prove that science rules prove if it is not determinism ??? "We have determined that there is no God."
How by Wolpert's therom ?