[Krimmel] > When we seek after the web that produced a particular result, > it is a post hoc analysis.
Yes, but we sometimes set up initial conditions & perform an experiment to find the result. [Krimmel] > The notion that the dice chooses to land in a particular way is absurd. > Every time a six is rolled at different nest of causality is invoked. Of course, the notion that the dice chooses to land in a particular way is absurd. But nobody claims that. We would only say that "the dice chooses to land in a particular way" if the dice AS A WHOLE so chooses. But it is not so absurd to say of any of the minutest parts of a die (call it X), that it chooses a particular path. That the dice lands in a particular way is the interaction of all the various paths of Xs. Consider: X chooses to go there X prefers to go there X values going there X is caused to go there X goes there because a nest of causality is invoked. For Pirsig, all these record the same data. They differ only in their explanatory power. Is "X goes there because a nest of causality is invoked" any better an explanation than "X values going there"? After all, what invokes the "nest of causality"? How does it do it? And why? Craig 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/
