[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Michael Poloukhine]

> MP: 
> - Chance is quantifiable. One can use mathematics to estimate or roughly 
> predict the results of chance. You can't do that with Quality;
> Quality and its 
> direct results are only qualifiable. 
> 
> - Chance is a measure (of the lack of something, eg: order,) Quality
> is  immeasurable. If you can measure something that comes as a result
> of Quality, 
> you must be measuring something else upon/in/through/by which
> Quality was manifest through experience.
> 
> - Chance is only found in results, Quality precedes results.
> 
> Or do I mis-understand Quality?
> 
> [Krimel]
> Probability is a way of quantifying chance. You can measure Quality
> in terms of the odds in your favor; what seems GOOD to you and its likelihood
> of becoming.
> 
> Results are no longer subject to chance. They are chances resolved
> into stasis. Chance and Quality are estimates of future possibility based
> on every instant's resolution of the uncertainty that gave rise to
> it.

MP: But that is still not measuring *Quality.* Its measuring the *chances*, the 
*likelihood*, the *probability* of an experience having or resulting in Quality. Its 
not measuring the Quality of the results. Its not saying "this is more Quality than 
another." 

Like I said; "If you can measure something that comes as a result of Quality, 
you must be measuring something else upon/in/through/by which Quality was 
manifest through experience."

RMP has Quality undefinable. I think we can agree this is the case, yes? So 
how do you measure something you can't define? Yet we can measure chance. 

Ergo, chance <> Quality.

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."