[MD] Probability

[Case]

[Ham]
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?

[Case]
Let's see in physics it explains the existence of the inorganic world. In
biology is explains the evolution of life on the planet. In psychology it
explains much of human and animal behavior. That's not enough for you?

If you read what I said slowly you will see that I was at pains to emphasize
the 100% probability only exists in the present an that the present is in
principle inaccessible.

>From the human perspective now is our own internal representation of the
external world. For us "cause" is a sequence of events that we observe to
occur with 100% probability.

[Ham]
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]
You refer to a statement I made earlier speculating on why there is
something instead of nothing. I said that it is highly unlike that something
can come from nothing but that if it has any possibility at all given worlds
enough and time it will happen. This does not make it inevitable since but
since it seems to have happen I conclude there was world and time enough. 

I also said this was a meaningless question. If the universe and time are
indeed infinite then it is a cosmic principle that everything that can
happen will happen. But questions about the scope of the universe are for
physicists to answer. I see no clamber among them to invoke a Creator.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
The point is that we have only our internal representations to go on. This
is not a matter of speculation. We can speculate on its significance. But it
is a fact not open to debate. When you read the words on this page your
nervous system is responding to light waves emitted from the screen in front
of you. Those light waves travel very fast but it does take them time to
reach your eyes and it takes time for the retina to convert the photon to
nervous impulses and more time for the nerve to travel to your brain and
more time for your brain to make some kind of sense of them. All of this is
measurable ad calculable.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
Are you actually saying the mind generates matter? Because is if you are you
have many more problems than this one. You should get on well with Platt and
his elves and such.