That’s such a stuffy tittle. You might call it “The Possibility of Probability,” or “What Happens With Chance,” if you like.
I thought I might be of some use to my readers if I were to write a brief article on this subject. Please note that this is primarily a philosophy paper and not a mathematics one; though, of course, the two subjects are, as all subjects, inseparable and hard to distinguish from one another.
It is, and rightly so, the most commonly accepted model across all subjects that all probability is metaphorical. From basic physics, we reach the self-evident conclusion that all physical systems have a predetermined out come from the moment they are set up. Therefore, when this principle is applied on a macro-level, we reach the modern understanding of Chaotic theory; that is, that the entire universe is one giant physical system, composed of the interactions of countless smaller systems, that has had a predetermined course of action from the moment it was set up. Thus, according to our understanding of physics, there was a one-hundred percent chance, since the dawn of time, that you would be sitting in the exact spot that you are currently, at this exact time, reading this exact sentence, and thinking the exact thoughts that you are thinking right now.
Of course probability is still a very useful concept in many cases. One excellent example is genetics. We still use the assumption that inheritance is “random,” and therefore, that the mathematical principles of probability can be applied to determine the “likely-hood” of one trait being passed on versus another. This method of evaluation is very practical because the chaos involved in the system is so developed that it can be assumed to be random–it functions much like a small angle approximation. However, according to our larger model, there is no such thing as randomness in the literal sense.
It is imperative that we understand the universality of this principle, even as we venture into metaphysics. In the absolutist’s scope, probability is still only metaphorical when it comes to metaphysics, and one can use the physical metaphor of probability as an analogue to the metaphysical one. As I have indicated in my post on fractal reality, there is a fine line between the metaphorical and the literal, and perhaps even no line…metaphorically. But in the case of probability, there definitely is a line, as the actual relationship between the metaphor and the reality it represents can be entirely understood by the human mind (that is, if anything really can).
In metaphysics as in physics, the whole principle of metaphorical probability is designed entirely for the sake of convenience, and is not actual believed when it comes down to what is really happening. Thus, in physics, we can estimate the probability that a cannon firing a tennis ball will hit its target, while in reality, we know that if we had every specific detail about the set up of the system to an infinite degree of accuracy, we could know for sure whether it would. Likewise, in metaphysics, we can say that there is a freedom of the will such that at any given time it has a certain chance of making one decision over another, but in reality, we know that if we knew every single detail about the soul (which is fractal), we could say for certain which decision it would make. That’s not to say that the soul isn’t free, but that its freedom is not bound to time. All of time is a metaphor when it comes to metaphysics. The whole story of a soul choosing between death and life is thus an embodiment of the soul in the medium of time, all though, a complete knowledge of the soul outside of such a scope would allow for a knowledge of the soul’s every decision “before” it was made. It is as if, in both metaphysics and physics, time is merely a way of looking at a complex system part by part.
To take this a little further, consider a four-dimensional cube. We can only express such an object in the form of a hypercube, which is a three-dimensional object that changes shape over time, thus expressing each of the different four-dimensional angles form which the real object can be viewed. But in four dimensions, all those angles are present without any need of morphing. Likewise, a fractal-dimensional physical or metaphysical system must be expressed by morphing a “three-dimensional,” or what I will call, “normal-dimensional” (to avoid a bias towards physics), one over time. (and I said this article wasn’t about math)
But when we talk about the limits of either of these systems, we must set aside our normal-dimensional perceptions and likewise our metaphorical probability. There is no “chance” that the end or beginning of time did or will look one way or another physically or metaphysically. It just was, will be, and if we are to be most literal, is. Thus, when we talk about the qualities of the Omnipotent, there is no chance that they are one thing or another, they just are what they are. This understanding excludes the possibility of an arbitrary Omnipotent “happening” to cause an intelligent humanity. In the literal sense, nothing about metaphysics is random, and because when we discus the Omnipotent’s first action of causing, we are referring to a limit, even the metaphor of chance is senseless. Therefore, if we are to say that humanity is intelligent, then we must also say that the Omnipotent is intelligent. For an understanding of logic cannot “happen” to arise from nowhere. It must, at the limit of causality, have been present in the origin of reality.
As for the objection that computers are “more intelligent” than the human beings that have created them (this objection was posed by a commenter). My answer is, no they are not. The intelligence that this, and all my arguments on the Omnipotent, are referring to is the one upon which the scope of the argument depends. That is, the argument depends on the fact that human logic is capable, to some extent, of finding and understanding metaphysical truth. That we can build a computer that emulates some of the mathematical algorithms of the human mind does not mean that we have created something “intelligent” in this sense of the word. It only means that we have found a way of putting that human intelligence into general terms, much like writing it down. If I throw a baseball through a window, I have broken the window, not the ball. In the same way, it takes a human to know that a particular circuit pattern will perform a particular task, but the circuit pattern doesn’t know the first thing about the matter, it is only a tool which is being used by someone who does. Therefore, computers, which have no understanding of human logic, are not intelligent at all.