> [Krimel] > I think the problem I have is this notion of possibility with out limits > which is what I take Ham's absolute potential to mean. This would allow > for > a universe where two things occupy the same space at the same time or > where > 6=9.
DM: Sure can imagine a universe where whenever six particles are brought together they open up a possibility where three more emerge. Not really very hard is it! Even if you allow for a multiverse in which different universes are > allowed to evolve from differing sets of physical laws each set of such > laws > defines or sets limits on what is possible within it. DM: Sure, and you can only understand this idea as a subset of all possibilities. At any start point you are stuck with a no limits beginning. Why does this get you all nervy? The point of a > metaphysics is to look for sets of rules hold or set limits on what is > required to have any set of physical rules at all. DM: Sure, hence you define the finite nature, the limits of your environment, but you needa context, and there is always doubt, have you got it wrong, are other possibilities your actual ones? I would say uncertainty > (Quality) is such a metaphysical law. Stasis (SQ) and change (DQ) would > make > my list. But I have a pretty short list. > > In your dice example there are six possibilities that a measurable or > worth > wagering on. I would argue these are the only ones worth concerning > ourselves with. They have 'probability.' But there are many other > possibilities. Even without violating the laws of physics where we toss > the > dice and it keeps going up or appealing to some weird quantum effect where > all of the particles in the dice simultaneously vanish. The dice could > land > balanced on any of its eight corners or stand on any of its 12 edges. > Those > are 20 'possibilities' but beyond acknowledging that they 'could' happen > it > is safe to ignore them. DM: Sure, but just the fact of them not generally not happening is part of our understanding, get it? By expecting the six we are negating an infinite set of non happening possibilties that give meaning to the six. Interesting how quantum theory has changed our knowledge of what these possibilities might be as you suggested above, 100 years ago you might have invoked satan as the source of possibilities beyond the six commonly known ones. Greater/extended knowledge of the possible is very evident here. > > DM: A probability is a measure of possibility is it not? > > [Krimel] > Yes my only point is that I don't regard probabilities beyond say one in a > trillion to really be possibilities in any meaningful sense. DM: But you except 1 against infinity, i.e. the impossible. There is no escape from this concept and its real possibility. Or are we just > arguing about decimal places? Sure enough monkeys with enough typewriters > and enough time can produce Shakespeare but if the amount of time is > longer > than the expected lifespan of the known universe I'm not paying in advance > for a first edition. > > Having said this I want to be quick to point out that I am not dismissing > the value of the events that have even very low probabilities. I think we > are just haggling over price here. DM: Of course the most probable and the proabably impossible is the most important but we have to see this in the context of the whole economy of the full and unlimited range of the possible. 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/
