[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Case]

Ham,
This was very gentlemanly and gracious response and much to your credit.
Case

[Ham]
Case reveals quite a bit about himself in the 3rd person:

[Case]
I will be more careful in the future.

[Ham]
Here are the notes you've apparently discarded:

> That nature and the cosmos are not chaotic but operate as an
> orderly system according to intellectually discernable laws suggests
> that there is a design implicit in the system, and an implicit design
> logically presupposes a Designer.  Moreover, if we were designed
> by a Designer, it would seem logical that there is a purpose
> to the design.

Now I've got two questions for you, Case.

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right that "it is all a
probability distribution":

1)  What is it you suppose the probability is DISTRIBUTING?

[Case]
Probability is not DOING anything at all. But if you are seriously
interested it goes like this: 

There is only one point in space and time where the probability of anything
is at 100%. That point is NOW, and then it is gone, replaced with a string
of new NOWs. NOW is that point in the present where all of the wave
functions, all of the guess work, all of the coulda-woulda-shouldas are
resolved, everywhere in the universe all at once. NOW transcends space and
time and focuses everything in a singe instant. This happens continuously. 

We as beings have no access to this instant of NOW. It is, in principle,
theoretically, actually and metaphysically beyond our reach. Our sense data
of it, even our mystical connection with it, are limited by the time it
takes a thought to form or a nerve impulse to travel. By our very nature we
are always one step behind. It is limited by the fact that even looking at
it changes it. In this sense "Reality" IS undefined.

Outside of that instant of 100% probability; every other instant, in both
temporal directions, Past and Future can, in principle, be assigned a
likelihood. The future will be thus and so, or the past was like this...
These are estimates of probability because they contain some element of
uncertainty.

Human beings are possessors of the most complex chunks of matter in the
known universe. Through them we are able to store information. I like
computer metaphors so I think of this capability as a temporal buffer. That
is, a place were past events are represented and reconstructed. This is
experience. This capacity allows us to randomly access events from our pasts
and reconstruct models of the future. It is through this process that we
transcend the instant. We explore remembered pasts and speculate about
possible futures.

To speak of how all this came into existence is to ask; if not a meaningless
question, then one that can not be answered. We can and do speak of the
likelihood of this or the likelihood of that. I have a friend, who reads
stuff about the 12th planet and thinks our species has been manipulated by
aliens. I can not say to him, "That is impossible." But I regard it as
highly unlikely.

We observe that chaotic systems behave deterministically. No matter what
probabilities are bouncing around they will or have been resolved. What
limits our ability to make accurate prediction based on our temporal buffers
is that ANY probably of less than 100% means uncertainty. The calculations
necessary to predict anything, whatsoever, with absolute certainty would
take longer to make than just waiting it out. This makes the future
determined but unpredictable. 

I believe the same can be said about the past. In the case of the past we
have stored information available to make guesses, but the elements of
uncertainty inherent in our recollection make accurate statement about what
has already happened as problematic as our guessing about the future. The
farther you stray from the present the more uncertainties compound.

What we DO in our heads is take such information as is stored there and use
it reduce uncertainty. We make constant estimates of probability and these
estimates guide our actions. This increases the probability that we will
continue to exist. Setting goals and being able to define purposes for
ourselves is a happy byproduct of this. 

The fact that we are social beings increases the information available to us
by giving us access the probabilities estimated by virtue of the experiences
recorded within our fellow beings. Verbal and written languages give us
access to information stored not only be people living but people who died
thousands of years ago. The accumulation of this information and our
enhanced access to it are a big help in estimating probabilities and
reducing uncertainty in both temporal directions.

But there is no indication that this capacity exists as a property of nature
outside of ourselves. We can look at the continuum of creatures living today
and see a bit of it in all of them. It takes on an astonishing variety of
forms. But these forms all appear to have developed in response to the
conditions that exist in this region of space and at this particular time.

I believe that all of this has profound moral implications and that there is
purpose here, but it all arises from, is contained within and is solely
relevant to US.

The problem I see with assigning sentience and purpose to some external,
eternal whatever, is that this takes US off the hook. Whatever, properties
or powers you care to ascribe to God from: Creator, to omniscience, these
are properties and Qualities that WE are assuming more and more every day.
Given Godlike powers what are we going to do with them? To what purpose
should they be put into service?

Just as a side note I find all of this terrifying. As far as yours and
Platt's concern with the status of the individual, well all of these
estimating and calculating does take place in individual skulls but without
connecting and sharing of data, it really doesn't amount to much.

I could go on about fractal structure and how to draw pictures of this and
what those pictures might mean. But the truth is I really did see the "Who
Shot J.R." episode and this seems to have gone on long enough to warrant a
cliffhanger of its own...

[Ham]
2)  Since, as you note, it is highly unlikely (actually impossible) that
something could result from nothing, why do you assume nothingness as your
starting point?   Don't the odds -- excuse me, "probabilties" -- favor a
primary "something" as progenitor?  Wouldn't it be more logical to put your
bets on a timeless, spaceless source that doesn't have to be created?

[Case]
Ok here is the short answer and be mindful that some of this may be on the
test.

The beginning of time is a bad place to start. Unless you agree that time
starts NOW. NOW is timeless and spaceless and the odds of it happening are
100%.

Evidence of 'design,' that is, things working in harmony, (or things whose
probability is near 100%) is all you are going to see 'cause everything else
quit working a long time ago (it could not generate enough probability to
sustain itself).


[Ham]
Just a bit more "posturing" from your stuffy pen pal.

Happy 4th.

[Case]
I suspect we will not find much common ground but thanks for being a
gentleman. I enjoyed the exercise. Tomorrow night I hope to be watching the
heavens explode. 

Your obnoxious correspondent,
Case