> MP: > - Chance is quantifiable. One can use mathematics to estimate or roughly > predict the results of chance. You can't do that with Quality; > Quality and its > direct results are only qualifiable. > > - Chance is a measure (of the lack of something, eg: order,) Quality > is immeasurable. If you can measure something that comes as a result > of Quality, > you must be measuring something else upon/in/through/by which > Quality was manifest through experience. > > - Chance is only found in results, Quality precedes results. > > Or do I mis-understand Quality? > > [Krimel] > Probability is a way of quantifying chance. You can measure Quality > in terms of the odds in your favor; what seems GOOD to you and its likelihood > of becoming. > > Results are no longer subject to chance. They are chances resolved > into stasis. Chance and Quality are estimates of future possibility based > on every instant's resolution of the uncertainty that gave rise to > it.
MP: But that is still not measuring *Quality.* Its measuring the *chances*, the *likelihood*, the *probability* of an experience having or resulting in Quality. Its not measuring the Quality of the results. Its not saying "this is more Quality than another." Like I said; "If you can measure something that comes as a result of Quality, you must be measuring something else upon/in/through/by which Quality was manifest through experience." RMP has Quality undefinable. I think we can agree this is the case, yes? So how do you measure something you can't define? Yet we can measure chance. Ergo, chance <> Quality. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
