May 2, 2020
ALEATORY GUIDANCE
a·le·a·to·ry
adjective: aleatory; adjective: aleatoric
depending on the throw of a dice or on chance; random.
How is it possible that we can get knowledge and guidance from something that is random and chancy? That is the common sense question one asks when told that the I-Ching is a valuable system and will be used in LUCKISM®.
We must get rid of our automatic reactions and preconceptions about chance and randomness.
In Daily Ramble 31 - "LET THERE BE DICE!," I have touched on the recognition of chance in our daily lives and at the bottom of fundamental sciences such as Physics.
In the background, it is helpful but not decisive to know that the I-Ching has been in use for thousands of years. It has gained the respect of people such as Confucius, Carl Jung and Daniel Young.
It is also helpful, but not conclusive, to know that chance is useful in other areas without being specifically recognized as such. See generally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_randomness
For example, chance is involved in inferential statistics, the science of using random sampling of a small part of a population to reach conclusions about the entire population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_inference/ Making decisions on the basis of statistical analysis is nothing less than looking at an accumulation of a mass of individually chancy events and combining them to get a definite conclusion.
Polling applies statistical methods to arrive at a prediction from an accumulation or sampling of individual facts, each of which, by itself, has no overall predictive power. Statistical chance is also at the foundation of the gambling industry, guaranteeing a profit from individual gambling events which are, by themselves, unpredictable.
The conclusions or "profit" reached in the business of particle physics, also known as high energy physics, are of the same type. The final particle "observations" are not fruitful or meaningful until they are extracted from indirect detection of billions of individual, unpredictable events. So, in my view, they are nothing more than condensations or digests of chance, viewed in accordance with a notion that certain probabilities indicate the existence and movement of particles.
Let's move one step further along the line of research in particle physics. According to Nima Arkani-Hamed of the Institute For Advanced Study (a leading light in these matters) the research at high energy, (banging particles together to see what comes out), is reaching its limits. To continue going further in that direction will require so much energy concentrated on so small an area that it will create a black hole, "swallowing" the very things we want to observe. I understand him to suggest a new way to go further by looking for mathematical/geometrical explanations of what we have already observed. (Keep in mind that those underlying observations already have chance as an ingredient.)
Arkani-Hamed proposes a description of the entire cosmological history and contents of the universe as a mathematical object. His approach, called a "bootstrap" method, infers the laws of nature by considering only the mathematical logic and self-consistency of the laws themselves, instead of building on empirical evidence. Whew! That's a mind blower. Or is it a simplification? Or a unification? Is it real? Godel's work suggests that, whatever mathematical system is used to accomplish the purpose of explaining the universe as a mathematical object, it will have incompleteness at it base. So, I ask, "What is existing and operating in the area of incompleteness beyond Arkani-Hamed's future explanation?" I say,"chance, uncertainty and unpredictability." "ALL THE WAY DOWN," as the lady said.
In sum, chance may be an ineluctable aspect of the existence of matter/energy and the universe, however you derive or describe them with the prevailing tools of physics and mathematics. Stated differently, you cannot have a continuation of reality, let alone life, without chance, whether it is in a Ptolemaic geocentric system, a Newtonian cosmos, an Einsteinian/ Bohrian spacetime/quantum universe or some mathematical/geometric construct slouching towards Princeton to be born.
Now let's move from "science" to ordinary decisions and conclusions in life. Consider how you make a decision in a state of uncertainty, after you have the best input from all the experts you think are needed, scientists, economists, psychologists, ethicists, politicians, family, friends, Google, etc. (I mention without stressing it, that there will already be an abundance of chance elements entering into those opinions.) What do you do with the many varying facts and opinions? You "make up your mind." So let's look into the making up of the mind. Is it weighing pros and cons? If so how do you assign weights? Is it the "preponderance of evidence" use in jury decisions (whatever that means)? Don't forget that there is a lot of chancy stuff also going on in the thinking organ you call a "brain.'
I could go on with this line of questioning and reasoning but I don't think it's needed. It leads to the conclusion that, when there are imponderables, or a multiplicity of contradictory factors or opinions, chance will enter into the decision, all along the way, in dealing with the spectrum of facts and expert opinions.
Bottom line: Using chance explicitly, in a system designed to have it create patterns, and interpreting those patterns (the most difficult part) in accordance with an underlying philosophy is not in conflict with common sense. Moreover, placing chance or unknowability at the center of a religion is more grounded in reality than relying on the provisional certainties of Science delivered by the current stars of the subject or on the instructions of a god, delivered by way of representatives known as prophets or priests or mullahs or rabbis or popes.
I have much more to say about the I-Ching and its use in the gatherings of LUCKISM® to decide questions of importance to the congregation. But this is enough for one ramble.
END
No comments:
Post a Comment