[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

Gene, Case, and Platt --

 [Platt]:
> I wonder, Case, if you could assess the probability that
> your probability theories are wrong. Also, since you claim
> we are always "one step behind" reality and even that our
> looking at it changes it, on what basis can you claim that
> our knowledge of probabilty is valid?   Or don't you?

[Case]:
> I think it has be high probability of being correct but one
> of the reasons I posted it was to see if others agree. I believe
> I have started by making very few assumption about "the way
> things are." Gene's comments came in response to my
> justification for making one of them: that there is an external
> reality at all.

The problem with probability is that it doesn't explain anything.
Everything that happens can said to happen because the probability of its
happening is 100%.  If it had a probability of anything less than 100% it
wouldn't occur at all.  What does that tell us about its cause or origin?

The fact is that probability cannot itself be a cause or creator.  It is
just a number.  So that if man's occurrence was "inevitable" as Case
suggested, one could say that it had a probability of 100%.   But
"inevitability" has a different meaning: it means that the probability of it
not occurring is 0%.  Therefore, whatever is inevitable MUST occur, either
by a cosmic principle or by the intention of a Creator.

[Case]:
> This is merely a sketch of what we can say about such a reality.
>
> As for being "one step behind" I don't see any way around this
> but, if you can explain how we have direct apprehension of the
> physical world I would love to hear it.

I see no distinction between what we actually apprehend as "the present" and
the "real" present.  If, as you say, we are "one step behind", then the step
ahead is the future.  Your problem is an epistemological one.  You believe
that reality is a quantum system generated by micro particles or bundles of
energy in time and space, and that, since we can't measure the velocity or
position of these quantum components to the microsecond, our experience
falls behind.

For those who believe that the mind or awareness is the generator, that
problem doesn't exist.  "The present" is the experienced present because
there is no other.

For those who believe that space/time is the mode of awareness, as I do, the
whole question of how many eons it took for man to appear in the universe
and the probability of it happening is meaningless.  Insofar as Case seems
to think reality is inevitable, I agree with him.  But, for me, the
probability of either nothingness or "bundles of energy" organizing
themselves into a self-sustaining system that gives rise to intelligent
awareness remains at 0%.

I suspect that Platt would agree.  Incidentally, Platt, I've been developing
some new thoughts on Value recently, which I'm running on my 'Values Page'
this week,  www.essentialism.net/balance.htm.  Although it wasn't
intentional, I think you'll find much of what I say about Value to be
compatible with Pirsig's theory of Quality.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Best regards,
Ham