[MD] Probability

[Gene M]

> 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.


I don't know where you are getting your information, but it's not very good.
The two most succesful theories in scientific history are the Theory of
Relativity, and the Quantum Mechanics. Let me explain what allows a
scientific theory to be qualifies as "succesful".

A good scientific theory has to explain Reality as it is currently known in
it's fullness, but not only that it must make predictions. These predictions
can then be verified, and if they turn out to match the theory, the theory
is considered good, if not, the theory is scrapped. Both these theories have
made dozens of predictions about what Should exist if they are correct, for
example Quantum Mechanics has predicted the existence of several then
unknown particles, which have only recently been discovered, having exactly
the qualities predicted by the theory decades ago. That is the sign of a
succesful theory. No two theories have ever made so many correct
predictions, which is why they are said to be amongst the most succesful
scientific theorums of all time.

Hardly vulnerable.

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.


Ad-hoc theory is extremely misleading, and shows a lack of understanding of
scientific theory as a whole. All theories are essentially ad-hoc, but as I
said, they must make verifiable predictions. The sub-atomic particles that
Quantum Mechanics deals with Have been "seen". Using particle colliders all
6 varieties of quarks have been discovered, ant-particles have been
observed, protons have been deconstructed, neutrinoes measures, photons
observed. These aren't abstract anymore, they're in the realm of
experimentation and observation.

Sub-atomics are the reason for the physical world, because they are the laws
by which hte universe was formed and developped. Nuclear Fusion is a
subatomic process, without which no stars could exist, and thus nothing
could exist. Lest you forget, we are all made of stars. In the very very
early universe sub-atomic forces were the only laws that functioned. The
very way we see to observe is through the translation of subatomic
particles. Photons are the only means by which we can see the world around
us. Sub-atomic forces explain how things got to where they are.

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.''


There's certainly a lot of very interesting stuff as to how consciousness
affects Reality. The fact that when we all look at something, we see the
same thing is vastly fascinating! And I've read some really interesting
articles about it. But the fact of the matter is that Quantum Mechanics is a
very interesting, and useful idea. It's base don observation, prediction and
falsifiability. What is Essentialism based on?

[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.


Limiting. Materialism, and anti-materialism are both limiting ideas. I
choose to hold both variety of ideas whenever possible. Contradictions are
understanding.

-Gene