[MD] Probability

[Case]

[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.)

[Case]
I have always taken Pirsig’s terms at face value. Static means fixed
predictable and Dynamic mean changing and unpredictable. In probability 0
would mean never gonna happen and 1 would mean always gonna happen. Either
option would be totally Static. A probability of .5 would mean whatever it
is could go either way or unpredictable. If everything could be assign a 0
or 1 everything would indeed be predictable we would have the kind of
world Laplace envisioned. Since we now know that uncertainty is inherent
in the physical world and even in the realm of mathematics. We need to
deal with it. In Dreams of Reason Steven Weinberg claims that Newton and
Einstein’s theories gave rise to profound philosophical changes in the way
we view ourselves and our place in the universe. But he does not see how
this can result from the discoveries of quantum mechanics. I disagree. I
believe that if indeed uncertainty is as ubiquitous as we are being told
then it does have profound implications and I have been attempting to go
over what those might be. I think the MoQ actually provides a metaphysical
foundation for understanding this.

[Ham]
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 have mentioned what place these values have several times but we keep
getting off on other issues. Life is a series of random events. I
seriously can not see how you could have failed to notice this. Everyday
people simply driving home from work ram into each other and die. Cells
randomly run amuck in our bodies and we get cancer and die. Every week a
set of balls gets pulled from a cage and some lucky stiff hops on the
gravy train. Lucky sperm meets happy egg and lovers become parents. Life
is chaotic. Pretending that it isn’t doesn’t make it go away.

All of these random events have emotional consequences of course. I am
glad my boss got hit by a bus. I am grief stricken when my mother-in-law
gets cancer. I wish I had picked a couple of different number in last
weeks lotto. I would prefer to be a grandparent than a parent at this
point but I would be glad just to get laid
 There is meaning and profound
emotion in lots of these random events but the meaning and emotion are our
own. They are properties of us as humans not properties of cars or cells
or lotto balls.

You seem to want to ascribe meaning into the universe itself and this just
strikes me as vanity and folly. If for example the universe does have this
infinite purpose, how would be know what it is? Or since you seem to know
let me ask you what is it? Even if you in fact know what it is our can
point to a source like the Bible or the teaching of the Buddha and there
it is all written down. It is still not my purpose unless I adopt it and
begin to live it.

I have never said there is no purpose I have said repeatedly that purpose
is wholly located in us. We have purpose, the universe does not.

[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 spermatozoa will successfully fertilize the
ovum. You're measuring in microseconds an event that scientists themselves
admit is no more than a hypothesis.

[Case]
I think you have serious and profound misunderstandings about the nature
of scientific thought.

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

[Case]
All conversation about the ultimate purpose of life the universe and
everything strikes me as pointless wishful thinking. I can look at the
world around me and see definite pointers to what I think my own purpose
is and what I believe the purpose of every living thing is but I accept
ownership of this I do not see it as inherent in the external world. It is
not fated or dictated or necessary.

My chief concern is that we, individually and collectively, adopt purpose.
And typically we are very shallow about doing this. We either accept it on
authority or we just muddle though. Somehow in the process we have
collectively built up the recourses to assume the powers we have always
ascribed to our Gods in the past. I am concerned that we are not going to
be very good at this and unless we can find a better framework to guide
our actions our future looks more like Mad Max than Star Trek.


[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?

[Case]
Man is the myth maker. We tell ourselves stories because we respond to
narrative. Personally I think the stock scientific explanation explains
all of the items on your list. I think there is plenty of hard evidence
that much of our behavior individually and collectively is explained as
organic response to uncertainly.

Perhaps two example with suffice. In Christianity believers are enjoined
to submit to the will of God and trust in his benevolence. All things work
for good to him who believes. God has an ultimate plan. When you start to
look for the specifics of the plan things get a bit strange. It is highly
subject to interpretation and when it gets down to the specifics of why
God allows this bad thing to happen to me; it gets really fuzzy. But
functionally for the believer putting trust in God relieves you of having
to worry about every little thing. It makes you feel less powerless and
resigns you to your fate. We are more comfortable believing that no matter
what random thing happens it is all working for good. In other words faith
is a response to Chaos.

For the Buddhist the ideas are different but the result is the same.
Buddha saw desire as the root of suffering. He tells us that by freeing
ourselves of desire we will achieve oneness with the universe. Again this
is a technique for making peace with a chaotic universe. By desiring
nothing, even our own lives, our expectations are not violated when bad
things happen.

It seems to me you are merely seeking to put a new somewhat sterile face
on this age old problem.