[MD] Chance

[David M]

Hi Krim/DBM

I like the democracy line below. Laws are too closely associated with gods, 
kings
and having to do as we are told. Another thing: is there causality for both 
DQ and SQ.
Science generally describes SQ and can see causality in repeatable law-like 
terms.
But DQ happens too. But what does DQ do? DQ has no law to follow. Yet
stuff still happens, much non-SQ law-like stuff. DQ is active. Does it act?
Is DQ volitional? What about SQ? Is it volitional too? Why does SQ repeat?
Does SQ repeat because it has found something good, something worth 
repeating?
Does DQ fail to repeat because the good is absent? Does DQ try again? Does
DQ seek alternatives?

Cosmic selection? Does it require alternatives to select from, and values to
determine what is worth selecting, and some motivation to do so? Or is
everything tried out more randomly? So that what flourishes and survives
is enough to create all that is? Or does quality play a role? Nonetheless,
both views require the creation of variations and variety from which to
select. Such is DQ?

The physicist BK Ridley's book 'On Science' is worth a look on this question
of SQ/DQ forces/causes.

David M


Krimel said to dmb:
All Pirsig has done is rename "causality". When he substitutes the word 
"preference" all he has done is swap the line of causality for a bell curve 
of preference. Adding waves to lines will turn a sock inside out. There is 
no topological shift here.

dmb says:
Well, if you just call it "preference" but think of it in terms of causality 
then yea, only the names have changed. But obviously the point is to change 
the way we think about these relations. The traditional idea of physical 
laws is that they govern the actions from without. We can't actually locate 
these laws anywhere in physical reality, of course. So guys like Spinoza 
would say these laws are the mind of God. Einstein liked that idea quite a 
bit too. Or sometimes they say these laws just always existed, invisibly, 
eternally. The switch to preferences doesn't ask us to believe anything that 
fantastic. It says these same actions are "decided" from within rather than 
dictated from without. You might even say its a more democratic physics. Its 
volitional all the way down.

Krimel said:
I see causality in Jungian terms. Jung called it synchronicity or 
"meaningful coincidence." He did not associate synchronicity with causality. 
In fact I believe he thought of synchronicity as acausal. But I think 
"causality" is a special case of synchronicity where the probability of 
"coincidence" among events approaches 100%. The closer the relationship is 
to 100%, the more meaningful it becomes. Calling causality, "preference" 
allows us to speak about measures of central tendency, mean, medium, 
standard deviation but the implication of agency does not follow.

dmb replies:
Jung? Really? Okay, I'll give you points for trying to keep it interesting. 
But I also detect the distinct scent of bullshit here. Is "synchronicity" 
Jung's name for causality or did he think of it as acausal? Was it a kind of 
causality or did he not associate the two? You're saying quite a few 
contradictory things all at once. Its so awful bad that I can only conclude 
I'm being punked. Either that  or you were drunk when you wrote it. But 
synchronicity is not a bad example, actually. As I understand it, Jung was 
talking about the phenomena of events being related in a non-causal way. 
That's what's spooky about any co-incidence, the way it defies the world as 
we normally understand it, which is in terms of causal relations. 
Synchronicities are that breed of co-incidence where this defiance is 
especially pronounced. He thought it was one of those things that offers a 
mighty clue, like a glitch in the Matrix that allows you to take a peek 
outside for just one brief moment.





_________________________________________________________________
Make every e-mail and IM count. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ MakeCount
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/