> DM: Yes for our universe this is true, but beyond our universe all > things may remain possible. Maybe we need an 'actualisable' concept? > Not everything possible is actualisable at any given time/place. > > [Krimel] > This is the problem I thought Ham was letting the 'impossible' through the > backdoor with 'potential'. If you mean 'possible' in the sense of > 'anything > is possible' then we must part company. I will revert to my term of > preference 'probable'. You have been saying the actual is a subset of the > possible. But the actual is not a subset of the impossible.
DM: Sure the greatest set is all things possible with no limits, this can be divided for us into what may be possible forour cosmos and what is impossible for it -this is very simple to understand or else you are not following me. The actual is a subset of all that is possible for this cosmos that actually occurs. I chuck a dice, six possible faces up are possible, at this moment only one will become actual to understand what 'six I win' means is to accept that it was possible for a six to become the actual result but that there were also five other possibilities that have not been actualised for this moment-event. I am saying here nothing that is at all difficult or even very arguable. > >> [Krimel] >> As I tried desperately to show a long while back in the NOW all >> probability reaches 100%. In the NOW possibility equals actuality. DM: Yes this is the collapse of the possible into the actual that has a certain sort of certainty. > > DM: But the now is always being disturbed by the need to embrace > one set of finite possibilities and forsaking an infinite set of > possibilities, at least that is how I experience life in the now. > > [Krimel] > At anytime outside of NOW there is no actuality only probability. DM: A probability is a measure of possibility is it not? The closer > to NOW we are the less variation there is in the probability of what can > actualize. Yes The farther we drift from NOW the greater the variation, until > possibility in your sense starts to make some sense. DM: Makes sense right through this movement/open unfolding. So for example it might > be possible for monkeys to fly out of Ham's butt if at some time in the > past > conditions had been more suitable for butt monkeys to evolve. Yes > 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/
