[MD] Probability

[david buchanan]

Howdy MOQers:

Craig said to Gene:
...It seems your argument is: 1) We cannot have certainty about sub-atomic 
particles. 2) All reality depends upon sub-atomic particles. 3) We cannot 
have certainty about reality. Firstly, even if we cannot currently have 
certainty about sub-atomic particles, it doesn't follow that we never will 
be able to...

dmb says:
I'm using this fragment as a way to target the basic underlying assumptions 
of the broader discussion. I mean, this concept of certainty seems to rest 
on the assumptions of SOM. And I don't really mean the Uncertainty Principle 
itself so much as the view that real knowledge is produced when the subject 
has an accurate picture of objective reality, usually a physical objective 
reality. See, the idea here is that philosophical problems about certainty 
or lack thereof are created by this assumption.

According to some old notes, this notion that truth is a matter of the 
subject coming to properly understand objective reality (SOM) creates an 
"epistemic gap". I believe this is what Matt Kundert is refering to when he 
complains about the "appearance/reality distinction". But this assumption is 
not just the sort of thing we hear about in philosophical discussions. Its 
also the assumption of the culture generally. I mean, for today's educated 
Westerners this assumption is just common sense.

As I see it, the war between those who insist that we can never cross that 
epistemic gap are riding in the same boat with those who insist we can. They 
may have opposite views about the possibility of achieving certainty, but 
still agree that there is a gap. But if I understand the MOQ rightly, Pirsig 
is saying that this gap is produced by SOM, is manufactured by these very 
assumptions. I think the idea is that SOM is like Newtonian physics in that 
they both work for most practical purposes. But when we need to get 
philosophical about the nature of truth and reality these assumptions have 
to be subjected to a different level of scrutiny, you know? And of course 
this is exactly the area where SOM really fails miserably.

And I guess I'm sort of saying that this failure can lead people to faith 
based beliefs instead, to the various kinds of nihilism. This failure can 
force us to take all sorts of weird positions as to what constitutes the 
truth. But I think the MOQ is suggesting that we can avoid that whole mess 
by re-thinking SOM. This is the pivot point of Pirsig's Copernican 
revolution, no? SOM assumes that experience is produced when the subject 
encounters objective reality while the MOQ says that subjects and objects 
are produced by experience. Experience is the starting point of reality in 
the MOQ, but it drops the assumption that experience depends on pre-existing 
subjects and objects.

You see what I mean?

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963