Two points Akshay ... One - It is only GOF-Science that presumes the world exists out there ... enlightened science has recognised the fallacy of that logic for around a century .... the "new physics".
Two - surely logic and scientific method pre-date "computer science" ... or did I miss your point ? Ian On Nov 27, 2007 11:05 AM, Akshay Peshwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The scientific method, stated in bare-bones fashion, is not at fault. It is > the application of it that renders studies like classical physics incomplete > in its definition of reality. > > Let me point out a simple error of application of the scientific method. At > the core of the SM is Logic, with its foundation laid in computer science > (axiomatic set theory et al). However, one of the biggest assumptions of > science is that of the existence of an external world; in other words, the > absolute truth of what is the waking state of mind. As Gav pointed out in a > most fitting way, quantum physics has arrived at a stage where the > fundamental assumptions of science are being subjected to scrutiny -- by > science itself (as opposed to by philosophy, as was custom for hundreds of > years). > > The Vedantic answer, modified to the MoQ's requirements, would be that > Dynamic Quality is the absolute reality and everything else is relative. > Now, exactly as to how true the normal world is is a debate that is related > to one's attachment to the world. Hence, a complete renunciate (sannyasi) > would say that DQ alone is reality and all else (SQ) is illusion, whereas a > householder (grihastha) would say that SQ is real although only relatively > so, thereby not denying SQ completely and maintaining his role in it by > minimum attachment. > > I don't quite agree when Pirsig implicitly calls DQ an aesthetic experience > (in ZAMM there is a division between the aesthetic and logical parts of the > mind). What has aesthetics to do with it? Aesthetics is purely an > intellectual pattern that links to biological patterns of pleasure and pain > and social patterns of desire and aversion. > > Akshay > > On 26/11/2007, gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > the problem is not the scientific method. > > the problem is in the interpretation. > > whilst science operates under the inadequate aegis of > > SOM it will have difficulty understanding the whole > > picture: 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/
