[MD] Food for Thought

[Ham Priday]

Case --


 Ham said:
> In the experiential world, history is observed as process:
> 'A' progresses to 'Z'.

Case:
> This is one of this many roots of your problem, Ham.
> History in process is nothing at all like A-Z. Your assumption
> is that the past is fixed: fait accompli. You are assuming that
> one could stand outside of time and see it all as done. You
> seem to see time like a video where if you run in backwards
> and forwards it will always begin and end the same way. I
> would say this view is completely without foundation.
>
> If you rewound reality or watched it in reverse the same
> uncertainties would apply and there is nothing to guarantee
> that the beginning or the ending would be the same each
> time you watched.

I am trying to justify your side of the argument with dmb, but you are
making it very difficult.  To begin with, "history" usually refers to the
cumulative works of mankind, not molecular activity or genetic mutations.  I
don't see that the physicist's notion of "uncertainty" or "predictability"
in microcosmic phenomena is relevant to a philosophy based on an
experiential reality.  It seems to me that the "evolution of mankind" that
we call history has taken a course determined by human decisions.  Since it
has not been significantly affected by the random events of matter, past
history is a 'fait accompli.' -- no matter how many times you "play it
back."

> If as the physicists tell us uncertainty exists at every level
> then not even God himself or the Absolute Source, if you
> prefer can predict the future. I would insist further that
> the same hold true of the past.
>
> I will defer to your expertise on Whitehead but it seems to
> me when he speaks of process as "becoming" he is not
> suggesting that the outcome is determined.  He is talking
> about a dynamic process whose outcomes are unknown.
> There is a big difference between saying that things are
> deterministic and saying that they are predictable. That is
> the lesson of Chaos Theory.

Yes, certainly the outcomes are "unknown".  We cannot predict the future.
Determinism and predictability are an intellectual concept of physicists who
are dealing with events whose causal parameters are limited and whose
effects are by and large predictable.  Human events, on the contrary, cannot
be predicted on a cause-and-effect basis.  The possible behavior of a single
individual has far too many "self-determined" variables to make this
feasible.

You make a distinction between determinism and predictability.  I
distinguish between determinism and inevitability.  From the evolutionary
perspective of human experience, it is inevitable that history will play out
its course from the Big Bang to entropy.  It will then have been completed.
But because I see the individual as free and autonomous, I reject the idea
that man -- individually or collectively -- is pre-determined or predestined
by nature, cosmic law, or the essential source.  Your continuing emphasis on
probability and predictability suggests to me that you disagree.

Ham:
> Now what, exactly, is "absurd" about my writing a thesis?

Case:
> The absurdity lies in your overblown conception of
> nothingness. The common denominator of existence is
> uncertainty.

"Overblown conception" is a subjective judgment of my cosmology.  I fail to
see the connection between writing a metaphysical thesis and viewing history
as a fait accompli.  Uncertainty isn't a common denominator; it's a
qualification, albeit one that's extremely important to you.  I wonder why.
For me, existential uncertainty is a guarantor of free choice.  The greater
the certainty of the outcome, the less freedom one has to choose.

(I'll skip the 'All is One' premise and your comment, as it is not
particularly germane to this topic, and to characterize Oneness as a
"nihilistic" belief demonstrates your total lack of understanding.)

Cheers,
Ham