[MD] Probability

[Gene M]

On 7/24/06, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.


Right.

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"?


Except that Case is taking a one of the most wildly succesful scientific
theories to every be formulated, which deals specifically with the most
basic funtionings of the universe, and has made verifiable predictions for
decades. Slightly different than a single event, like an acorn smokng you in
the head. The base nature of Reality is uncertain, on the smallest scale
known to our current methods. Sure, on the macro scale everything is neat
and tidy, but that's an illusion. The only reason my hand does not pass
through the keyboard as I type is the stron nuclear force repelling the
constituent atoms of both entities. Sub-atomics is why the world is the way
it is, and how it works the way it does.

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.


Describing someone else's state of mind is generally not a course of action
I suggest. When you tell someone  that they "live in constant fear", the
odds are stacked pretty bad against you being right, and you'll probably
come off looking like an ass. I personally believe all of those events
possible, but I live in no more fear than any other person I know. In fact,
I'm generally amonst the least stressed out and most jovial of my friends.
Sure I could die of a heart attack, but it's not likely. Or I could find a
briefcase full of money. But that's not likely either. I'm generally happy
just with the way things are going.

[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.


I don't see what having faith, or trust in the world has to do with needing
intuition, or being afraid. You clearly have a great deal of faith in
Essentialism. You can never prove it to be correct, it's simply a nice,
logically consistent set of intellectual patterns that you believe in, and
that works well for you. Congrats. You think you've got a winning horse and
you are sticking to it, rock on. I simply do not have the same degree of
faith in your ideas as you do, and that should be okay with you. I prefer to
allow for the possibility of many answers that Could all be true. I'm trying
to keep my mind open, and clear of as many static patterns as I can.

Any pattern that tries to arrest the devellopment and thorough investigation
of new ideas, is not a pattern I try to keep. The more patterns the better,
the more ideas the better, the more beliefs the better, the more
contradictions the better, the more truths the better. It's more fun that
way!

-Gene