[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

[Case]
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.

[Ham]
I don't understand your conclusion here.  The thing (event) with a
probability of  0 to 1 assigned to it will, as I understand it, virtually
never occur.  So, unless you are talking about new happenings in the
existing world, you will have a static universe.  (But maybe this is what
you're really saying.)

My problem with this kind of reasoning is that it defines reality only in
terms of "what happens".  Where are the qualitative values of love, beauty,
joy, or freedom in this worldview?  They seem to be conspicuous by their
absence.  I'm sorry, Case, but life is more than a sequence of random events
that somehow manage to cheat the odds of a chaotic universe.  Scrutinizing
the possibility of this or that occurring in percentage points is a dismal
way to look at reality.  (And I thought existentialism was depressing!)

[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.

[Ham]
This is playing with minutia in an unfolding cosmos of infinite richness.
To me it's like trying to understand what man is by predicting which one of
the hundred million odd spermatazoa will successfully fertilize the ovum.
You're measuring in microseconds an event that scientists themselves admit
is no more than a hypothesis.  Here is how Wikipedia described that event:

"The very early universe, which is still poorly understood, was the split
second in which the universe was so hot that particles had energies higher
than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth.
Therefore, while the basic features of this epoch have been worked out in
the big bang theory, the details are largely based on educated guesses."

[Case]
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.

[Ham]
That's a cryptic statement.  What on earth is "going on right now" that
makes fundamental questions "useless"?

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

[Ham]
I read Davies' essay and am familiar with his ideas.  Let me quote one of
them:

"The universe looks as if it is unfolding according to some plan or
blueprint.  The input is the cosmic initial conditions, and the output is
organized complexity, or depth.  The essential feature is that something of
value emerges as the result of processing according to some ingenious
pre-existing set of rules.  These rules look as if they are the product of
intelligent design.  My own inclination is to suppose that qualities such as
ingenuity, economy, beauty, and so on have a genuine transcendent
reality--they are not merely the product of human experience--and that these
qualities are reflected in the structure of the natural
        -- [Paul Davies: from an interview on Purpose in the Universe]

[Ham, previously]
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.

[Ham]
Yes, there are all kinds of myths out there, some of which have been alluded
to by Pirsig.  In your probability terms, I would say that the likelihood of
man inventing a mythical explanation for something he doesn't understand is
close to 99%.

Your assumption that I'm concerned with causality is correct.  And, since I
don't base it on probabilities, you may consider the idea of an uncreated
source that is not bound by time and space such a myth.  For me it is the
only credible cause.  It offers a plausible ontology that explains creation,
existence, value, consciousness, freedom, and transcendence.  And it doesn't
depend on probability numbers.  What more could you ask?

Thanks for the probability references, but no thanks.

Regards,
Ham