[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

Gene --


> 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 qualified as "successful".
>
> 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
> successful 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.

All scientific theory is predicated on an objective view of reality.  What
makes a particular theory intellectually credible is that it can be made a
subset to the body of knowledge already accepted by the scientific
community.  That a theory can be "predictive" makes it a useful tool for
gathering additional information about the objective world, but unless a
theory conforms to the methodology of Science, it has no value to the
objectivist.  In other words, to believe in a scientific explanation of
reality is a "faith-based" option, just as are believing in spiritualism or
religious dogma.

This quotation from Mountain Math Software,
www.mtnmath.com/willbe.html#willbe, pretty well reflects my scepticism
concerning Quantum Mechanics as the last word in understanding reality:

"Fundamental physical models are the simplest possible descriptions of what
we have observed experimentally.  We have no way of knowing how accurately
they reflect the true structure of physical reality.  It is possible to
construct radically different models that give nearly identical experimental
predictions.  Physics was able to progress only by ignoring the religious
dogma of the day.  Unfortunately each new generation of scientists in every
field has a tendency to create new dogmas.  To conclude we have gone beyond
classical logic or mathematics requires compelling experimental evidence.
Problems that suggest this possibility are far more likely to be a product
of the limitations of our existing understanding."

[Gene]:
> 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 based on observation, prediction
and
> falsifiability. What is Essentialism based on?

Observation, predictability, and falsifiablility are useful criteria for
validating factual information (intelligence) relative to an objective
space/time system.  However, man does not have access to factual information
about ultimate causes and non-objective reality.  Human consciousness itself
cannot be explained scientifically, nor can the values, meaning and purpose
of life.  In fact, these subjective phenomena "get in the way" of scientific
investigation.  They are incapable of measurement or direct observation
because they are not existential realities; instead, they are proprietary to
the individual who experiences them.

Essentialism is based on the reality beyond differentiated existence.
Unlike Science, which takes objects for granted, the Essentialist accepts
cognitive intelligence as a proprietary construct (i.e., appearance) of
reality derived from sense impressions mediated by a space/time mode of
awareness.  This is the philosopher's approach to understanding, and Pirsig
has essentially taken the same route.  He and I both postulate experience as
the primary "mediator" of reality, although he declined to theorize a
primary source.

Concepts having to do with an absolute, uncreated source are not bound by
the logic and empirical limitations of finitude.  However, it is possible to
come up with intellectually plausible epistemologies and hypotheses that can
account for existence within a logically consistent ontology.  This is what
I have attempted to do with my philosophy of Essence, which starts (as
Descartes did) with the one thing that is inimical to Science, subjective
awareness.

[Gene]:
> Materialism, and anti-materialism are both limiting ideas.
> I choose to hold both variety of ideas whenever possible.
> Contradictions are understanding.

If contradictions are your meat, then Essentialism should whet your appetite
;-).

Essentially yours,
Ham