[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

[Case]
The inaccessibility of the present explains in very concrete terms why
Quality is undefined.

Probability gives us an assessment of how well our internal representation
conforms to what is actually in the real world. It also corresponds well to
Pirsig's Static and Dynamic Quality. You seem disturbed about its causal
nature. This is irrelevant since it is not causal. It actually explains how
we perceive and recognize cause and in the sense that you cling to causality
and purpose, it explains why these are unnecessary.

[Ham]
You have described probability as "an assessment", which I think is a fair
definition of its function in any context.   You've also conceded that "it
is not causal".  Therefore, however it may explain the accuracy of "our
internal representation" of reality, probability theory cannot possibly
account for its cause or essence.  But explaining reality in terms of its
fundamental cause is what philosophy and metaphysics are all about.

The MoQ thesis is that Quality is the primary empirical reality.
Essentialism asserts that quality (value) can be no more than a subjective
or emotional experience of an apperceived object, which presupposes a
primary source.  Both theories present arguments that support their
respective views in terms of the nature of reality as related to human
experience.  You say that Quality cannot be defined because the present is
inaccessible.  I don't see why this is so, but it would seem to me that
postulating a cause is a necessary step in any philosophy.  Does probability
theory reject cause and effect, or is there an ontology advanced by its
proponents?

[Case]
Contrast this with say a term like, I don't know... Essence, which has no
meaningful definition, explains nothing, has no referent in common parlance
and seems to function mostly as a kind of pseudo-philosophical spackling
compound.

[Ham]
As you yourself have pointed out (to Platt) "epistemology is a bitch," and
metaphysics is "in the same category of gnomes, elves, leprechauns and
fairies."
Since man's cognizance is limited by his perceptive faculties, any theory of
reality is necessarily hypothetical, which means that philosophy will always
involve some "patchwork" speculation.  If you dislike Essence, and would
prefer to call the uncreated source God, Quality, or Cosmic Law, I have no
objection.

What I do object to is the idea that reality comes about by "chance" which I
tend to equate with "probability".  I was hoping you could show me that I'm
wrong.

[Case]
As to the role of probability I am not an expert by any means but it strikes
me that the whole point of quantum mechanics is that we can only make
probability statements at the most fundamental level of matter and energy.

If that is true, we should not be looking at phenomena that lie beyond the
reach of human sensibility, but gleaning our knowledge from observations of
the macro-world where the data are universally consistent and reliable.  I
find the necessity to make probability statements about unknowns in the
physical world a fruitless obsession.  If the limitations of experience are
the impediment to knowledge, doesn't it make more sense to explore the
dynamics of experiential awareness than  Quarks whose reality is supported
only by statistical evidence?

[Case]
...Probability is nothing if not a means of assessing uncertainty.

[Ham]
As you and others have stated, there will never be absolute certainty in
human experience.  I see no value in a life-long effort to prove this fact.

[Case]
Whether you like it or not evolution is fundamental to Biology and evolution
is all about how various traits in individuals increase the probability a
species will continue.

Evolution is fundamental only insofar as it enables us to understand the
world in the space/time mode of human experience.  It is not fundamental to
ultimate reality.

[Case]
In psychology, behavioral theory is all about how reinforcement and
punishment effect the probability that specific behaviors will occur.

[Ham]
I'll leave that to the psychologists and social engineers.  Social behavior
has little to do with my area of interest which is metaphysics.

Thanks for the explanation.

--Ham