[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

 Gene, Peter, Case --

[Ham]:

> Who was it that said "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

[Gene]:

> Except that Case is taking one of the most wildly successful scientific
> theories to ever be formulated, which deals specifically with the most
> basic functionings 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.

Why do you and Case tie your ontology to a materialistic theory that has
only "predictability" to its credit?  Indeed, to arrive at this theory,
quantum physicists have taken measurable data and reverse-engineered it to
hypothesize a micro structure which they can neither observe nor define by
standard objective criteria.  I don't know what leads you to say that the
indeterminability of quantum physics is "wildly successful", but of all the
physical explanations for the universe, this has to be the most esoteric and
scientifically vulnerable theory.

You say that "the base nature of Reality is uncertain, on the smallest scale
known to our current methods," while admitting that the neatness and
tidiness of the macro-scale is "an illusion".  If what we can objectively
describe and explain is an illusion, then why would an ad hoc theory devised
to explain what is incapable of objective description be any less illusory?
To me that's fallacious reasoning.  On what basis do you conclude that
"sub-atomics is why the world is the way it is, and how it works the way it
does."  Just because something is too small to be objectively determinable
doesn't make it credible.

Many leading physical scientists believe that there is a demonstrable
connection between mind and matter.  Consider this statement from the
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group:

"Beyond its revolutionary technological applications and scientific impact,
the evidence of an active role of consciousness in the establishment of
physical reality holds profound implications for our view of ourselves, our
relationships to others, and to the cosmos in which we exist.  These, in
turn, must inevitably impact our values, our priorities, our sense of
responsibility, and our style of life.  Our ability to acquire, or to
generate tangible, measureable information independent of distance or time
challenges the foundation of any reductionistic brain-based model of
consciousness that may be invoked. The lack of notable correlations in the
data with standard learning curves or other recognizable cognitive patterns,
combined with the repeatable and distinct gender-related differences,
suggest that these abilities may stem from a more fundamental source than
heretofore suspected. Certainly, there is little doubt that integration of
these changes in our understanding of ourselves can lead to a substantially
superior human ethic, wherein the long-estranged siblings of science and
spirit, of analysis and aesthetics, of intellect and intuition, and of many
other subjective and objective aspects of human experience can be
productively reunited."
            -- Spiritual: Cultural Implications,
www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/3.html

This same source also mentions the 'Gaia Hypothesis', quoting James
Lovelock's 1979 book "A New Look at Life on Earth":

"...the physical and chemical condition of the surface of the Earth, of the
atmosphere, and of the oceans has been and is actively made fit and
comfortable by the presence of life itself.  This is in contrast to the
conventional wisdom which held that life adapted to the planetary conditions
as it and they evolved their separate ways.''

[Gene]:
> Any pattern that tries to arrest the development 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!

Well then, have fun entertaining new ideas.  But remember that the ideas
presented by objectivists are going to be biased in favor of materialism.
However poor my grasp of Pirsig's Quality thesis, it is clear to me that it
is not a materialistic philosophy.  Neither is Essentialism.

--Ham