Indeterminate

• We are the way we are because we happen to have the history we have…there is no ‘necessity’ to the way we are. (the Mott problem: spherical wave yet linear track).
• Any ‘thing’ other than me has a different unique history…any different linear trajectory in a cloud chamber (the Mott problem) has a unique history
• AI will never produce another ‘me’ simply because it can never have the same history: my ‘history’ is continuous with ‘me’…we are not ‘distinct’ in the sense of separate…I would not exist, if it were not for my history…to separate me from my history is just a “mind game”…it’s unrealistic…time is real….in a very real sense I am ‘my’ trajectory through time….I am not just the current composition of molecules…I am also the historical trajectory that produced this particular arrangement of molecules at this very moment …and there will never, can never, be another.
• Everything that we know has a history and nothing is ultimately ‘determined’… neither by ‘first cause’ nor by ‘final cause’ (‘Causation’, Norton)
  https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0003.004/1

…and a ‘refutation’
https://blog.gruffdavies.com/2017/12/24/newtonian-physics-is-deterministic-sorry-norton/

…notice it states as part of his argument that “Newton’s laws are deterministic, but they’re not complete.” (boundary with holes) and in that his argument against Norton fails: Norton is essentially claiming that ‘incompleteness’ and ‘indeterminate’ are equivalent….Norton is dealing with the idea of ‘boundaries’ without using the word. If you read the Gruff blog you will note his repeated references, both explicit and implicit, to ‘boundaries’…even in his first paragraph he says, “We handle this by excluding them.”

The problem is that ALL boundaries are permeable in some way….if you dig deep enough in any argument you will find the hole.

The only way to fill that hole is with ‘power’ (Foucault).