[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

> [Krimel]
> Aside from your overall confusion about a point so central to your
> "philosophy", there is no "empty space" as you fantasize it to be.
> Each point of space is bathed in light, electromagnetic radiation,
> heat and gravitational fields. Nothingness accommodates none
> of these.
>
> This "silly argument" does not miss the point of a "primary source as
> opposed to first cause." It dismisses it.

And, by dismissing the primary source, you reduce reality to the appearance 
of things in space/time.  This is ordinary subject/object experience.  All 
you're doing is limiting your perspective of reality to physical existence. 
By the way, photons and electromagnetic radiation can pass through a perfect 
vacuum (nothingness) as they do in empty space (nothingness).  This doesn't 
change nothingness into something.

> Again this is a central point that you are utterly confused about.
> It is not possible for you to suggest a "point of view" that sets
> aside space/time as optional. They are inherent in any description
> of existence. This stuckness in space/time does not go away
> because you believe you can imagine some other godlike
> perspective. Thomas Nagel makes a similar argument against
> this kind of thinking in "What it's like to be a Bat." We can
> imagine 'ourselves' to be bats. We can extrapolate our
> sensibilities onto a bat. But we can not know what it feels like
> for a bat to be a bat.

Who is talking about "what it feels like"?  Certainly not me.  Granted, I'm 
not giving you a physicist's view of reality.  The primary source is not an 
experiential entity: it is not directly sensed or experienced by human 
beings.
Rather, it is the potentiality of all the things you're describing.

> Even to approximate such of line of thinking in the way you do
> requires a more sophisticated understanding of space/time than
> you bring to the task. It requires a more sophisticated understanding
> of human sensation and perception than you bring to the task.

By what standard do you measure "sophisticated understanding"?  A textbook 
on science?  If you scorn all metaphysical concepts, and finite existence is 
the only reality you can accept, then why do you need philosophy?

 [Ham, previously]:
> Sure, your "Big Bang" theory is in "accord with the
> universe as it is "understood" by Science.

 [Krimel]:
> It is not my theory. It is the theory acknowledged by
> the best minds in the field.

Exactly.  The best minds in the field of astrophysics.  And you'll find that 
their "understanding" of ontogeny is all over the place, mainly because, 
like you, they reject a primary source.  Like you, they experience time as a 
physical principle, hence have invented a "big bang" to account for its 
"start".  Not all physicists accept this theory, however, since it violates 
the law of Conservation of Energy.

> Since ontogeny is the study of how an individual comes into
> existence you are darn straight I look to science to explain the
> reproductive process. If the price is that I have to forfeit a
> confused view of metaphysics, I am glad to pay it.

I suspect you regard any metaphysical hypothesis as "confused".

> We enter space/time at birth but it does not spring into being
> as we are born.

Of course.  That's the "unsophisticated" knowledge you get from experience. 
Unless or until you allow yourself to consider intuitive concepts, your 
understanding will never get beyond the finite, relational world.

 [Ham, previously]:
> Ex nihilo nihit fit is a logical principle that is central to all
> metaphysical hypothesis.

[Krimel]:
> It is just a statement like all swans are white. When we
> actually observe particles popping in and out of existence
> in a vacuum like ittisy bittsy black swans we might oughta
> rethink the centrality of this position.

So much for your sophisticated understanding.  It's as dead as philosophy in 
today's world.  Next time you have a yen to catch up on physics, check out a 
logic book while you're at it.  You'll find that the statement "something 
comes from nothing" is a fallacious premise.

Happy reading,
Ham