> [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! [Krimel] Surely we can imagine all sorts of impossible things and having imagined them, we can imagine how they might be possible. But what status do such musing have? Philosophers and scientists have a long history of engaging in thought experiments and exploring their potential outcomes and ramifications. But I would submit that possibility and potentiality only have meaning as expressions of actuality. 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? [Krimel] Because once a starting point, any starting point, is established limits are imposed. Every choice point past the starting point sets new limits and expands new possibilities. 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? [Krimel] Right this is why actuality can be 100% deterministic and yet unpredictable at the same time. > [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. [Krimel] I don't discount the remotely possible. But I don't dwell on it either. When they happen they are unexpected but they don't shatter my conceptual continuity either. This is why I am saying that uncertainty, that 1:infinity chance is a fundamental metaphysical concept. Chance rules. But people are very uncomfortable with it. They know it is true in their gut but construct all sorts of ways of ducking it. Ham and Platt are prime examples. > [Krimel] > 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. [Krimel] I think that if properly understood the MoQ captures this nicely. Static quality, that which is stable, lies at both ends; thing we are pretty sure will happen and things we are pretty sure won't. DQ and SQ mingle in the middle. 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/
