[MD] Probability

[Case]

[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.  

[Case]
What I am saying I have said many times. Quality is Uncertainty. It is
Chaos. Probability is simply a measure of uncertainty. In some instances it
can be measured fairly precisely in others it is just a guess. I maintain
that to say that something has a high or a low probability is to call it
Static. If it were possible to assign things probabilities of 0 or 1 we
would never have anything to argue about. Everything either would always be
thus and so or never thus and so. The fact that we can not say with much
assurance "always" or "never" makes everything we observe a mixture of
Static and Dynamic Quality. I believe this is a restatement of the MoQ
because Pirsig treats DQ as being something chiefly desirable in its own
right. He does claim at one point to have realized that SQ has its own
special charms. However, I believe all of the goodness he describes as DQ is
actually a state in which DQ and SQ are in Harmony.

[Ham]
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]
I get the idea that this business about cause is your primary concern. I
think I have also made it clear I do not share it. I do not regard it as
even an essential part of philosophy. For all intents and purposes all the
causes that have ever occurred can be explain adequately up until 10 to the
-43 of a second after the Big Bang started. As I understand this 10 to the
minus 43 is the smallest possible measurement of time. But after this
instant everything pretty much falls into place.

Here is a timeline of the Big Bang:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Since time itself began at this point it is meaning to ask what came before
this or to ask why. It is of course entertaining to ask and speculate
anyway. But I find it useless in terms of what is going on right now or in
explaining how things got the way they are.

As a bonus here is an essay by Paul Davies on why asking why about this is a
waste of time...

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html


[Ham]
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]
I just don't find the idea disturbing in the least. In fact it is among the
oldest ideas about cosmology that we know about. The ancient Mesopotamians,
Egyptians and the pre-Socratic Greeks all held that the world emerged from
primordial Chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos

I have found hints that the Aztec and Mayans shared this view.

The mathematic and tools needed to study chaotic systems has only been with
us for about 30 years. It is a new field and the findings thus far are
illuminating. You might find a bit of study in this area interesting.