"Equilibrium and balance is what is sought both in the miniscule that is the human world, and of course in nature and the non human universe. With an inderterminable, and probably incalculable number of factors and affectors influencing and manipulating everything in existence (and probably that which does not exist), it is not theoretically impossible to measure proposed outcomes. We do it everyday! The good word would be 'probability'."
Whilst probably :) true I have always had a problem conceptually with the whole notion of probability the closer one gets to an event-by-event analysis.
Sure, at the end of the day, when one looks at a data set or an array of events - at the end - one can see the ways and means of coming to a rationale for the probablility over the set that takes into account the variables at work.
But at the unitary level - at the point where ONE event has to be predicted - I think history and nature has shown that systems seem to resist such analysis.
Sure it may be based on the models we use and the inaccuracy of same and that we should then seek to make it as good a predictive model as possible.
But once again, the serindipitous nature of the randomness of the Universe puts pay to such a process.
In science a good example is if you put all females together of a particular species of frog, then spontaneously some of the females will change sex to allow for reproduction.
Its the irrepresibility of the process of life on our planet.
I am sure that a similar process operates on a sociological level to cause change - just for CHANGE sake.
Evolution if you will. Some of those changes will be imperceptible - some will be cataclysmic.
Some may have only a modest impact on us - one may end up finishing off our species.
Its the way the natural systems work.
And no model will ever have the capacity to generate the random, change-inducing process that results.
