[MD] Probability

[Case]

[Ham] 
For relative truths, how about 2 + 2 = 4; or all animals are organisms; or,
for any right-angled triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the
sum of the squares of the other two sides; or no two things can occupy the
same space at the same time?   Absolute truth presupposes an Absolute which
contains no relative truths.  Therefore, if you deny the Absolute, you deny
absolute truth.

[Case]
Most of those are true by definition which ruled them out. You sorta had me
going with stuff occupying the same space at the same time and then you
start with the just plain ol' Absolute.

As other than a purely intellectual exercise I really don't see the
significance of this.

[Ham]
I do not deny this.  In fact, it is our choice as free creatures, and I'm
totally with you in encouraging it.  

[Case]
This might be a fruitful avenue. We have never really talked about what such
a purpose would be or what basis one would have for arriving at it or why a
self imposed purpose would free one from despair.

[Ham]
However, the purpose I'm talking about is what Pirsig would call
"pre-intellectual".  It refers to Teleology -- the purpose of our existence.
Platt has said something to the effect that it is innate in the universe,
which would appear to be supported by Pirsig's Quality thesis.  He envisions
it as a kind of extracorporeal morality.  My own position on "cosmic order"
or teleology is that is the intellectual construct of man; that is, a finite
or relativistic representation of the absolute source.  
 
[Case]
This is where we butt heads, of course. I see no use in assigning purpose to
the inanimate world nor any role for consciousness outside of organic
beings. To the extent that Pirsig invokes purpose of this sort I have been
highly critical. His chapter on evolution is particularly rank in this
regard. 

[Ham] 
I'm a free-thinker, not a proselytizer, and I never "insist" that someone
accept my thesis.  I "present" it for consideration, and accept questions
from anyone who expresses interest.  Essentialism is not a "security
blanket"; it doesn't protect the ego or the self; actually, it rejects the
immortality of selfness.  The core belief of this philosophy -- what you
call my "fantasy" -- is the immutability of an absolute source.  You're free
to accept it or reject it.  

[Case]
It should be pretty clear that I reject it. But I am curious about why you
think it is important and why you don't just say what it is without
qualification, repetition or making up new words. I used to explain Quantum
physics to my kids on the way to preschool. If you can not state things in
terms that a child can understand, how do you expect anyone to understand?
When you over simplify you sacrifice precision but you gain clarity. Bohr
said the two were complementary. Seems like a fair trade to me.

[Ham]
I make no claims for Essentialism as an objectively provable truth.  I've
also said numerous times that Absolute Knowledge is inaccessible to man.  
Like most philosophies, including the MoQ, Essentialism is a belief-system
with a metaphysical foundation.  A magnanimous person could say that it's
Pirsig's Value taken one step further with a fully developed metaphysics.  

[Case]
If its claims are not verifiable why are they worth considering? If the
Absolute is inaccessible then why bother with it? If it doesn't make you
feel better and it doesn't explain anything in the world of matter or ideas
how does it differ from a leprechaun?