[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> You bet chance and DQ are different. The former identifies ignorance of
> underlying cause. The latter identifies speechless, wondrous surprise. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> BOTH identify "speechless, wondrous surprise". You have a "chance" at
> winning
> the lottery, I bet when you do you are speechless and feeling wondrous.
> 
> BOTH chance and DQ recognize that "cause" is SOM trap. Instead, events
> occur in
> a field of interwoven activity among inorganic, biological, social and
> intellectual responses to DQ, and these responses are constrained and
> enabled
> by the complexity of the pattern, a set of probability-to-respond, none
> pre-determined, none guaranteed, but instead carrying particular
> moment-to-moment "chances" or probabilities to occur.
> 
> By the way, "DQ causes events to occur" traps the cosmos without free will
> or
> agency. Your cat would evidence no preference to eat, as it has no
> choice,
> since DQ "causes" it to eat. Since this is not true, DQ does not "cause"
> anything to happen, your cat evidences probability that it will eat, but
> also
> probability that it will not. Its up to your cat.
> 
> But please, try again, what are the DISTINCTIONS between chance and DQ you
> keep
> alluding to? Intent? Plan? (I know its these, I'm just waiting to see if
> you
> have the integrity and brass to just say it.)

You know? Utterly hilarious.