[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Platt Holden]

> If Platt really did say
> 
> > [Platt]
> > In the deterministic world of science, chance is a measure of ignorance.
> When a
> > scientist doesn't know what causes a certain effect, like mind emerging
> from
> > mud, the effect is attributed to chance...
> >
> 
> No, no, no, no, no, no. That could not be further from the truth, a
> measure of Platt's ignorance, whatever point Arlo was going on to make
> about DQ and God    .... which I suspect I would agree with.
> 
> Chance is a measure of knowledge, it is a clear understanding of
> exactly what can (and can't) be known. The very opposite of ignorance.
> Ian

Yes, science is absolutely certain we will always be ignorant of some 
things, like knowing the exact position and momentum of an electron at the 
same time, or knowing what goes on inside a black hole. But science 
restricts itself to mathematically measurable physical data, just one small 
part of the experiential elelphant. So when science is asked to explain how 
life began or what is consciousness, questions beyond their domain, they 
shrug and say "chance" or "don't know," both expressions of admitted 
ignorance. There's no shame in not knowing everything about the whole 
elephant, so there's no reason to be defensive. Just admit your ignorance 
on move on.