Krim The past is fixed enough to make certain things in the present impossible.
DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [MD] RelationalmetaphysicsandtheHolographicPrincipleTheoryofMind > DM, > > The dice example is one reason I prefer probability to possibility. The > closer one is to the NOW moment or Whitehead's actual occasion the more > restricted the realm of the possible becomes. At the moment of > actualization > probability is at 100%. It happens. Moving into the future or into the > past > we are once again in the realm of probability/possibility. I get the > feeling > the Whitehead regards the past as fixed. I do not. > > Krimel > > --------------------------- > Krim > > Not for me, when we role a dice it has six very well > defined possibilities, only one of which will form its > situation on landing. Same goes for all other processes. > Including new ones, like what will be the > properties of a new material we create? We have some idea > what these might be, but we can only discover the actual > properties by creating the material. Or we fight a war. > Many outcomes are possible, limited in range by the outset > (which we may not be able to fully foresee), > yet which of the outcomes will occur is uncertain. Such is life > not just thought. > > DM > > ------------------------------------------- >> DM, >> >> I am pretty sure Whitehead saw himself as adding yet another footnote to >> Plato, a lengthy and complex one to be sure. I am troubled by the idea of >> these forms or ideals or primordial nature just floating around in some >> kind >> of Star Trek like subspace, waiting to be actualized. Haven't ruled it >> out >> but it just doesn't feel right. I think I know what you mean by this >> realm >> of the possible. That is to say I know what I mean by it. But when we are >> making a distinction between out interior reality and TiTs all of this >> ideal >> stuff seems more a product of the former than the later. >> >> Krimel >> >> ---------------------- >> Krim >> >> Plato and Whitehead are rather different. Plato suggested ideal forms >> to explain universals. Whitehead is concerned with process and is >> trying to describe it. He is therefore forced to look at the status of >> the >> many possible outcomes a situation possesses. For Whitehead a process >> occurs when a single possible (of many) is chosen to become actual (one). >> I cannot see any other or better way to describe process. Without the >> possible we are stuck with a reality of combinations where nothing truly >> new ever emerges. Plato's forms are a limited set of ideals, >> Whitehead's includes all possible forms. As Shimon Malin argues, >> Whitehead's >> philosophy fits very well with QT. I'd suggest the actual is a subset of >> the >> >> possible, >> that what is expressed in the actual is an exploration or journey through >> the possible, >> i.e. one particular journey or path through it. A journey we help to >> direct, >> >> but >> influenced by what hasgone before, so that we can only keep walking from >> where we are standing, where we have reached. If the cosmos collapses >> and re-bangs, we could enjoy another journey from the sphere of the >> anything >> is possible, through another expression/iteration =actuality. >> >> DM >> >> ------------------------------------------- >>> DM, >>> >>>>From what I have gathered on this I think Whitehead makes the same >>>>mistake >>> as Plato in thinking the world of forms (primordial nature of God) is >>> more >>> real than the grubby one we live in. I prefer to think the world of >>> forms >>> is >>> abstracted from this one by scrubbing off the rough edges. >>> >>> Krimel >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> >>> Krim >>> >>> Good point I think, cos Whitehead addressed this himself >>> I believe. You have to cut to the key aspects and zoom >>> in and out. >>> >>> DM >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>>>> [Krimel] >>>>> Any idea why Whitehead felt the need to explain ongoing creation >>>>> instant >>>>> by >>>>> instant? It would seem that beyond the initial mystery of the Big Bang >>>>> and >>>>> the creation of space/time things roll along pretty smoothly. >>>>> >>>> >>>> DM: Sure I covered this, because every situation has a large number >>>> of possible futures and each moment requires a decision-event as to >>>> which >>>> of the many possibles becomes the next actual situation. And as >>>> Shimon Malin points out, quantum theory agrees. >>>> >>>> [Krimel] >>>> True enough but having to metaphysically analyze moment to moment not >>>> only a >>>> whole new universe but a whole new set of rules for it gets really old >>>> really quick. The assumption of continuity between the past, present >>>> and >>>> future seems not only pragmatically justified but a real time saver. >>>> >>>> It's like I don't mind the occasional probing question but only up >>>> until >>>> the point that a migraine sets in. >>>> >>>> >>>> > > > 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/ > 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/
