[Krimel]: > You are speaking from a point of view that was abandoned at least > 50 years ago. Until you update your thinking you will continue to be lost. > At its peak Newtonian thinking spoke of cause and effects a relationship > of events that could be predicted with 100 percent probability. This is > not how things work.
[Ham] It is certainly not how things work according to the MoQ, which teaches that Quality is intrinsic to the universe. It says nothing about probability or predictability. Statistical analysis has nothing to do with this cosmology. If the universe is innately moral, why should "bad things" happen? Why do you persist in a "toss of the dice" view of reality when Pirsig equates it with Morality? [Krimel] It matches my understanding the MoQ to a T. It is about dynamic relationships among static patterns and how deterministic relationships can yield unpredictable results. It posits Pure Chaos at one pole and Absolute Nothing at the other. Life is a hammock swinging between them. At net of probabilities cast over The Way. When freemen vote we derive statistics from the counting. When money is spent we track it with probability curves. In our tax codes we see pie charts of what we hold most dear. In those counts and curves and charts we see the ebbs and flows of lives and fortunes. And in their tracing take the shape of our truest Values. >[Krimel] > Our behavior individually and collectively is determined by the > interaction of our biology, our past experiences and the current > environment. [Ham] The "current environment" is determined by man's cultural development, infrastructure, and the values they represent. These are not "causal effects", like a low-pressure stream that causes a hurricane; they express the choices of free individuals. [Krimel] Our 'current environment' could be any environment from our sofas to the vacuum of space. What we do depends on what is in the environment and our history of experience with whatever is there. In the vacuum of space I predict a brief period of gasping before becoming inert. On my sofa there is no gasping. How about you? [Ham] Chance and uncertainty are what gives man a platform for exercising free choice. One may call that a moral principle, but only if he regards it as contingent upon an amoral universe. You refer to the Big Bang as an example of singularity, but differentiated existence itself is a singular event. It is the scientifically inexplicable creation of multiplicity from nothingness. [Krimel] Probabilistically it could have happened. The problem is that it is only visible evidence that we can study and we draw such conclusions as we can and devise experiments to test them. Supercollider's to create ever higher energy collisions. So far the Big Bang offers a best guess on scant evidence. Unfortunately making better guesses is not a Value reflected in the US pie chart and only a sliver of effort is planned for now. [Ham] The Big Bang is only a metaphor for the beginning of process in time and space. In order to have an explosion, you must have a source of fuel and energy. [Krimel] You think it was like immortal teens planting cherry bombs in the cosmic lavatory? Ham, how you do go on... [Ham] Nothing comes from nothingness. If creation is a causal event, it must have a primary cause. [Krimel] It could have a primary cause. It could have multiple causes. It could have no cause. Nothing can be said about it. I call it Tao. If it is here now it is not what it was. Speaking of it as it was, is as futile as speaking of what will be. It is always uncertain. [Ham] Quality, Excellence, and Value are subjective appraisals of objective phenomena. None of these psycho-emotional responses can exist independently of the dichotomy we call existence. [Krimel] Oh, you mean the ability to appreciate Static Patterns? There is an evolutionary patter that has really panned out, huh? And the ability to respond to Static Patterns is working nicely too I see. From salt crystals and heart beats to myths and dreams they are static patterns in flux, beating the odds every nanosecond they cohere. [Ham] You characterize my primary source as a "phantom essence that leaves no trace." I assume existence is more than a "trace" reality in your belief system. Yet, all you offer to account for it is a "best guess" -- a bang that erupts from nothing. [Krimel] Taking your best shot is the American Dream my friend. To play the game you have to beat the odds. The smart money is with the house but you use the edge you have if the "vig" is against you. I'll take Dr. Pocketprotector over The Phantom Essence any time. I'll give you odds. What do you say? [Ham] You're a rational person Krimel. Which ontology do you think is more credible? [Krimel] When I can't see an edge, I flip a coin. But I don't toss it until I run out of edge. 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/
