If I may interject something into this discussion.
> Jorge: I find this part of Pirsig's a bit weak.
> To say that positively charged particles and
negative
> ones converge towards each other because they have
> 'a preference' for being together rather than
> separated...
SA: Think of preference in terms of attraction.
Jorge:
> Under the premise that MOQ displaced or
> replaced the so-called SOM, why not leave Physics
> (the best example of SOM) alone in its corner?
SA: Physics is moq. Science is moq. Physics and
science have been using moq, and once physics and
science understands this, then it would be for the
better. Here's a link in which Pirsig discusses
quantum physics and the moq as follows:
moq.org
Scroll down on this home page to where it says as
follows:
"Other MOQ.ORG Areas
More about the MOQ
Visit the MOQ.org Forum to read reviews of Lila and
ZMM, letters from Pirsig and more essays on the
Metaphysics of Quality."
SA continues: Visit the Forum. Click on hyperlink
'Forum'. Go to 'Index of Essays' and click. Then
click on 'Subjects, Objects, Data, and Values' - and
that's the paper by Pirsig.
Here's a quote from Lila on causes and values as
follows [Lila; Ch. 8]:
"In the Metaphysics of Quality 'causation' is a
metaphysical term that can be replaced by 'value.' To
say that 'A causes B' or to say that 'B values
precondition A' is to say the same thing. The
difference is one of words only. Instead of saying 'A
magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,' you can
say 'Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.'
Scientifically speaking neither statement is more true
than the other. It may sound a little awkward, but
that's a matter of linguistic custom, not science. The
language used to describe the data is changed but the
scientific data itself is unchanged. The same is true
in every other scientific observation Phaedrus could
think of. You can always substitute 'B values
precondition A' for 'A causes B' without changing any
facts of science at all. The term 'cause' can be
struck out completely from a scientific description of
the universe without any loss of accuracy or
completeness.
The only difference between causation and value is
that the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty
whereas the implied meaning of 'value' is one of
preference. In classical science it was supposed that
the world always works in terms of absolute certainty
and that 'cause' is the more appropriate word to
describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is
changed. Particles 'prefer' to do what they do. An
individual particle is not absolutely committed to one
predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute
cause is just a very consistent pattern of
preferences. Therefore when you strike 'cause' from
the language and substitute 'value' you are not only
replacing an empirically meaningless term with a
meaningful one; you are using a term that is more
appropriate to actual observation."
SA continues: See how the moq changes science, but
the way science can perform can remain similar and
better in terms of understanding the data. Hope this
helps.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
