[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

Gene, Peter, Case --

[Gene]:
> The moral of the story is in all ways what I see Case talking about.
> We're saying we can't have certainty. So why would a story about
> someone who does, have anything to do with what we're saying?
> If anything, I would say this relates to essentialism, in that chicken
> little believed his direct experiences instead of trusting in the world
> outside him to remain more or less the same.

You missed the point of this fable, hence its subtle connection to Peter's
echoing of Case's uncertainty principle.  Chicken Little lacked the courage
of her own convictions.  She accepted direct experience as certainty.  What
fooled her was the empirical evidence on which her conclusion was based.
The evidence was an acorn hitting her on the head.  The conclusion she drew
from it was that the sky was falling.

Case is taking the opposite position, but his conclusion is the same.  Based
on a piece of evidence from quantum physics, he's deduced that we're all
afflicted with uncertainty.  In effect, the sky could be falling and we
wouldn't know it because we don't have absolute certainty.  Peter suggested
having an aneurism as another way the world could be destroyed (i.e., by
ending experience).  They're both saying that the world is a dangerous place
because we can't know what may happen.  That was Chicken Little's panic
syndrome.  Who was it that said "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

Certitude, like Truth, resides in the Absolute.  Physical existence is
finite and differentiated, so there are only relative certainties and
truths, and the individual's
life is tenuous at best.  But Case doesn't believe in the Absolute or a life
purpose.  He says:

> All conversation about the ultimate purpose of life the
> universe and everything strikes me as pointless wishful thinking.

Since he doesn't believe in purpose, other what man invents for himself, he
lives in constant fear that the world may collapse at any time, whether by a
collision of a black hole with the sun or an asteroid hitting the earth.  Of
course, that's possible, just as it's possible that he could suffer a heart
attack.  Does this make life purposeless or meaningless?  Not if you believe
in a transcendent source.

[Gene]:
> The moral, as I see it, is to have trust in the world that exists
> outside us. The physical world is a product of itself, and can
> be trusted to take care of itself. If I stop believing in trees, I'll
> still bust my nose up when I walk full into one.

If you rely on relative knowledge of a finite world, it is "trust" or
"faith" or "playing the odds" that sees you through -- maintains your
sanity, if you will.  But if that's the extent of your belief system, it's
sadly in need of intuitive insight.

Essentially yours,
Ham