> Ron: > no room for any argument there. I guess I was saying that getting > caught up in possibility/probability is indulging in memory/projection > function rather than any sort of objective Quantitative science. > But hey, who am I? a loose field of convergent patterns. > (I put that on my 1044)
DM: You know the whole confusion kicks off with using the wave metaphor and equations to understand processes, waves of what? What is changing? Turns out to be probability, and where is that located? Tricky. Potential means something non-manifest that can be manifested, that gives physicalism a great conceptual brain strain. Probability equations are pretty real and objective but you have to measure their predicted presence and absence by working backwards into the un-manifested, i.e. the possible. The actual realises some of the possible and forsakes the rest of the possible and leaves it as unactual yet still possible. And what is the impossible, only the possible that never comes, but how long is never? Will it never come? Maybe. Will Hilary be president? maybe, its possible, is it impossible, who can say. Can George be president again, should be impossible, but is it? Could we all float off into space, seem unlikely? Maybe, maybe something even heavier might swing into our solar system? Do we live in an open cosmos? Is any thing possible? Probably not. Probably each moment of history wipes out any chance of certain future becoming actual. But at the big bang, what then? At the big bang were all possible futures available? Some physicists seem to think so.This is a very real and vast range of possibilities existing at a certain point, the starting point. But why not? I mean it, any suggestions why not? David M 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/
