[MD] Probability

[David M]

Hi Joe

Surely our expectations about patterns is based on our
knowledge of that great universal: SQ?

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Probability


> On Monday 17 July 2006 3:36 PM Case writes to Ian:
>
> [Case]
>
> But my original point was not about Absolute Truth or even probability. It
> was about Uncertainty. I maintain that uncertainty is a fundamental 
> property
> of reality; formally so in the domains of physics and mathematics. ZMM
> Pirsig said Quality is undefined. I am adding that when something is
> undefined some aspect of it remains uncertain. This uncertainty is 
> Quality.
>
>
> Hi Case, Ian, and All,
>
> In the modern esoteric literature of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Nicoll that I
> have read, structure plays an important role. Pirsig's study of Quality is
> important in that list for clarification. IMO the undefined aspect of
> quality occurs when levels of structure exist. The lower structure, though 
> a
> part of the higher structure does not comprehend the higher structure, and
> the higher remains undefined to the lower.
>
> Does probability apply in all structures?  IMO there are mystical
> connections between structures, in which probability does not apply, e.g.
> the social level, Child, Father, Mother is beyond probability and subject 
> to
> law. Sounds like faith to me? IMO knowledge, understanding, and faith have
> different roots. For example the statement: 'The sun will rise tomorrow
> morning' is based in trust, not probability. Uncertainty in trust destroys
> trust. I trust he means what he says., etc.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Probability
>
>
>> Platt said,
>> "One might as well cite the Church as an authority on truth"
>> [Ian]
>> Remember Platt - Reason is a church too. No-one has actual "authority"
>> just different ways of believing.
>>
>> I'm close to giving up on you (again) - people spend valuable effort
>> explaining their views to you, but you never show the slightest
>> inkling of building on even the very few points where you might agree
>> - and your only response to that criticism is gain-saying (see your
>> thread with Case). Playing devil's advocate is a rhetorical stance, no
>> human could be that dumb, no flatworm could for that matter.
>>
>> [Case]
>> I know little about flatworms, Ian, but I read this to an aquarium full 
>> of
>> fish and not one seemed to disagree...
>>
>> OK, suppose there actually were an "Absolute Truth." Whatever is actually
>> "known" about it has to be experienced or at least explained to everyone,
>> everywhere. Will this communion with Absolute Truth affect all 
>> individuals
>> equality or might some react to it differently than others? Because at 
>> the
>> point that even two among you might disagree, truth becomes relative.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> But my original point was not about Absolute Truth or even probability. 
>> It
>> was about Uncertainty. I maintain that uncertainty is a fundamental
>> property
>> of reality; formally so in the domains of physics and mathematics. ZMM
>> Pirsig said Quality is undefined. I am adding that when something is
>> undefined some aspect of it remains uncertain. This uncertainty is
>> Quality.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
> 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/
>