[MD] Probability

[Peter Corteen]

HI Ham,

you said:

It is one thing for a philosopher to hypothesize a greater reality beyond
experience as the source of all finitude.  It is quite another for a
nihilist to deny the essence of our finite experience on the grounds of a
technicality resulting from the limitation of man's intellect.


You called me a nihilist too some months back in these threads but that kind
of tack only works against you.

I take it that the greater reality you hypothesize is your 'essence' that
spontaneously 'negates' itself to produce subjects and objects? I observe
that individuals have no choice but to act as if their senses represent
reality, whether their brain is in a vat or not; but the senses always give
a distorted and partial representation even of things immediately
apprehended - and that is where uncertainty comes in.
Qualification must involve a final step of prediction that what has been
apprehended represents an aspect of reality. I'm certain that uncertainty is
a constant factor in existence but it's not synonymous with quality.

Regards

Peter

On 22/07/06, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Peter, All --
>
>
> > Paraphrasing Case; when something becomes 100% certain then it happens,
> is
> > true and real. Another moment later it is history, gone, never to be
> > repeated. I am not a scientist but the way I read the famous Uncertainty
> > Principle it is about uncertainty in the now; that you can't evaluate
> all
> > properties of the particle simultaneously. I appreciate Case's trial of
> new
> > ideas but to say 'Uncertainty is Quality' does not have meaning for me.
>
> Nor for me, either.  I think the whole issue of Probability and Certitude
> is
> a red herring.  The fact that a quantum physicist cannot measure or locate
> a
> quark's position at the precise instant he is observing it only
> demonstrates
> that man cannot push the frontiers of knowledge beyond his finite
> sensibility.  I see no other relevance of these statistical theories to
> one's ordinary experience of reality (present and past), Pirsig's Quality
> thesis, or my philosophy of Essence.
>
> The quality we recognize or value in existence is the essence of our
> experience.  It has nothing to do with the sub-micro structure of the
> universe which is Science's attempt to theorize objectively about what we
> can't experience or observe subjectively.  Whether you equate the premise
> "The sun will rise tomorrow" as a probability factor or a matter of
> "faith"
> or "trust", the fact is that the mode of human experience is sequential in
> time, and we are denied knowledge of the future.  The philosophical
> significance of this fact is that we can make free choices based on
> relative
> values in a relational universe.  If man had access to absolute knowledge,
> there would be no uncertainy.  But neither would there be any value for
> him
> in the life-experience.
>
> It is one thing for a philosopher to hypothesize a greater reality beyond
> experience as the source of all finitude.  It is quite another for a
> nihilist to deny the essence of our finite experience on the grounds of a
> technicality resulting from the limitation of man's intellect.
>
> Let's face it, folks -- a relational world has its limitations.  We can
> live
> life fully and enjoy its values.  Or we can spend our time despairingly
> because we'll never have all the answers.  As free individuals, the choice
> is ours.
>
> Regards,
> Ham
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>