[MD] Heads or tails?

[David M]

Krim

See comments

> [David M]
> Cause is the wrong word and not the point I am trying to make.
> Future event is also the wrong concept, as events are actual and present
> and I'd not suggest any future pre-existence.
>
> Rather I am pointing out that in processes that have tendencies of outcome
> rather than certainties of outcome, there is implied in such a process a 
> set
> of possible states, only one of which will become actual, and therefore 
> what
> becomes actual is limited by the possibilities available. Beyond these lie
> the impossible, but within what is possible a choice has to be made, it is
> called the collapse of the wave function by physicists, where as Dirac
> says 'nature makes a choice', at the human level we just say we make our
> existential
> choice.
>
> [Krimel]
> Sometimes I thing you and I are grappling with the same concepts, we just
> can not agree on the vocabulary to capture them. History does tend to have
> some kind of inertia. So for example we have confidence that the sun will
> rise. But tomorrow's sunrise is not a factor in allowing us to conclude 
> that
> it will happen. It is the string of past sunrises that gives us confidence
> in tomorrow. We have confidence in the occurrence of future events because
> of their consistence in the past. It is the past that lets us construct 
> the
> future.

DM: Yes, but I hope to improve your concepts as they are too narrow for my 
liking.

>
> As for Dirac's quote, don't you think that many of these quotes from
> physicist are often given in an attempt to simplify their subject for
> general consumption? I mean I love them too and am fond of quoting them 
> but
> aren't they often constructed so as to sacrifice clarity for truth?
>

DM: No because I am borrowing this quote & idea from the physicist Shimon 
Malin
who knew Dirac.