[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Ham Priday]

[Ham, to Krimel]:
> I'm not well-versed on quantum mechanics, but I don't see that
> probability has replaced Newtonian causality.  Indeed, the "relative
> likelihood" of events is directly related to our cause-and-effect
> comprehension of these [physical] forces.

[Krimel]:
> You are speaking from a point of view that was abandoned at least
> 50 years ago. Until you update your thinking you will continue to be lost.
> At its peak Newtonian thinking spoke of cause and effects a relationship
> of events that could be predicted with 100 percent probability. This is
> not how things work.

It is certainly not how things work according to the MoQ, which teaches that 
Quality is intrinsic to the universe.
It says nothing about probability or predictability.  Statistical analysis 
has nothing to do with this cosmology.  If the universe is innately moral, 
why should "bad things" happen?   Why do you persist in a "toss of the dice" 
view of reality when Pirsig equates it with Morality?

[Ham, previously]:
> I'm not as comfortable with scientific explanations of what is blithely
> called "Social Darwinism", as I don't believe cognizant organisms are
> restricted to cause-and-effect behavior.

[Krimel]
> Nothing in what I said refers to Social Darwinism nor was I talking
> about human populations. These comments clearly show your failure
> to comprehend the probabilistic notion of causality and human nature.
> Whatever we are, we are certainly not acausal creatures. Our behavior
> individually and collectively is determined by the interaction of our
> biology, our past experiences and the current environment.

The "current environment" is determined by man's cultural development, 
infrastructure, and the values they represent.
These are not "causal effects", like a low-pressure stream that causes a 
hurricane; they express the choices of free individuals.

[Krimel]:
> I think my point is that science acknowledges frankly that chance and
> uncertainty play an inherent role in any kind of understanding. They are
> interwoven into the fabric of the universe. When it comes to the Big Bang,
> which I assume is the singular event in question, it really is understood 
> as
> a best guess. What have you got to offer as an alternative, your phantom
> essence that leaves no trace?

Chance and uncertainty are what gives man a platform for exercising free 
choice.  One may call that a moral principle, but only if he regards it as 
contingent upon an amoral universe.  You refer to the Big Bang as an example 
of singularity, but differentiated existence itself is a singular event.  It 
is the scientifically inexplicable creation of multiplicity from 
nothingness.  The Big Bang is only a metaphor for the beginning of process 
in time and space.  In order to have an explosion, you must have a source of 
fuel and energy.

Nothing comes from  nothingness.  If creation is a causal event, it must 
have a primary cause.  Quality, Excellence, and Value are subjective 
appraisals of objective phenomena.  None of these psycho-emotional responses 
can exist independently of the dichotomy we call existence.  You 
characterize my primary source as a "phantom essence that leaves no trace." 
I assume existence is more than a "trace" reality in your belief system. 
Yet, all you offer to account for it is a "best guess" -- a bang that erupts 
from nothing.

You're a rational person Krimel.  Which ontology do you think is more 
credible?

Essentially yours,
Ham