@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
The probability might just be due to comparing apparently similar phenomena as if they were equals...for instance, how many atoms did the die lost between throws ? what else did interfere or changed in the conditions ? Allot, I am certain...this is a bit like weather prediction...it works, so it is not wrong, but just to some extent...we just don´t have enough information on what is going on...
Exactly. We look back on 100 rolls of the die and come to know a fraction. That's only half of the thing we call probability, though. It's what we do when we look forward that's whole point of it.
We look forward and imagine a set of possible events which we deem to be equal. Then through wave function collapse, or however it happens, one of the possibilities becomes distinct from the others... it has changed into actuality. Once this has happened, the actuality stands in an undeniable causal relationship to a previous actuality.
So far, all we've done is describe how we imagine the event comes to be. A determinist viewpoint might be this: the possibilities never were equal. In fact there never was more than one possibility. Whatever number appears face up had a 100% chance of doing so. Probability rests on nothing but a human failing to be entirely reasonable. Pure reason will not allow us to make predictions of any kind for the simple reason that there are too many undefined variables.
And this is proven by one thing: the undeniable causal relationship between actualities, of which there is only one set. The causal link is the crux of the matter: knowing that link gives us confidence to say that the word possibility is fundamentally meaningless. If an event is possible, it's happening. There is no collapse of the wave function.
Interestingly, we generally infer the nature of the causal link by observing the form of the actuality. We fill in the blanks in our knowledge with the assumption that the actuality contains its past somehow. In other words, the undeniable causal relationship is
in the actuality. In fact, we say the causal link is undeniable because the actuality is.
Long story short: we only know the actuality and point out that meaning in regard to it is dependent on cause. We derive meaning. Case closed.
Except there's another facet of meaning. Saying there's only one set of events wouldn't mean anything if we weren't simultaneously imagining more than one. The grand Unity is not ultimately defined by the parts that make it up. It's defined in contrast to the other Unities it could have been. Take away possibility, and we just took out an essential element of meaning. We derive meaning. Ya know?
Nondeterministic outlook: the collapse of the wave function is another name for primal judgement. What do you think?
)
