SA wrote:
"If I may interject something into this discussion".
You are warmly welcomed. We haven't had an occasion
to talk for a long time.
Jorge.
Jorge(previous): 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: Quite easy; for instance: -- I'd 'prefer' to be
close to a lady to whom I feel 'attracted'.
=====
Jorge(previous): 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.
Jorge: Yes, but look at it from the point of view of a
scientist. She/he is totally unaware that they've been
using MOQ. First one has to be aware of something so
that understanding may come next. I'd say that most
scientists have never heard of MOQ. Even when one has,
as in my case, not at all easy to understand when and
how one used MOQ in research work.
Here's a link in which Pirsig discusses
quantum physics and the moq as follows:
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.
Jorge: I read that paper a few months ago. Now, that
thanks to MOQdiscuss I've been more exposed to
Pirsig's views; it makes far more sense than when I
first read it. I think it's a very lucid exposition of
a number of important scientific dilemmas and a very
well formulated approach to what the MOQ may have to
say about them. Has this paper been discussed in depth
here? If not, and if there are others willing to, I'd
be very interested in its discussion.
SA: 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.
Jorge interrupts: I think that a large proportion of
scientists nowadays (as opposed to, say, 50 years ago)
would agree with Pirsig's last sentence. Causality
could be removed from scientific descriptions without
much loss of accuracy or completeness.
I'd say that Pirsig is right when saying above that
describing something happening as being 'caused' by
something else may be considered a matter of
linguistic custom, not Science. Two problems arise
though: linguistic custom can not be dismissed so
easily; scientists still need to talk (to each other
and to other's outside) about phenomena. Second
problem is that, if you remove 'cause' because it
might be inadequate language, why to introduce 'value'
instead, which appears to be even more inadequate?
Pirsig continues: 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.
Jorge interrupts again: This is not something peculiar
to quantum mechanics. There are statistical
formulations for all branches of physics and chemistry
(not so many in biology for obvious reasons). Trying
to avoid technical jargon ( at the risk of using loose
language) one could always say that, instead of a
system moving from one state to another because of a
certain 'cause', the system moves from one state to
another if the latter is more 'probable'.
Pirsig continues: 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."
Jorge interrupts again: Pity! He was doing quite
nicely until this last paragraph. There are several
flaws here. Quite serious flaws actually. But I can
not see how can explain the flaws in a few simple
sentences. I'd have to put forward examples and recall
Bohr's objections and Einstein's objections and many
other thingsĀ
Perhaps a new Thread? or, Perhaps, no
need to? As I said earlier: why not to leave Physics
alone in its corner? Physics seems to be doing quite
well without SPOVs; why not to leave it alone?
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.
Jorge: I think I see how the MOQ could change Science.
What I fail to see is how it could change it for the
better.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
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/
