> So, can the moq change science? I don't know, but > science is spearheaded by thoughts and ideas. > Theoretical physicist spearhead where the experiments > are to be performed. Stephen Hawkings sits around all > day thinking of formulas and theorizes what might be > happening at a black hole. Then he compares data > found in particle accelerator's. Thought-experiments > streamhead and cut down on the $ cost as to what > experiments would be best to perform. >
Hi SA Yes, I think this is to do with DQ and its role in our experience. Hawkings is focused not on our experience of the actual but on experience and thinking about what is possible. It is only by contrasting what does happen and how things do behave, to the larger and more open imaginative sphere of what might be possible and gaining an understanding of what may be possible and finding ways to talk about such possibilities that we can then try to work out which of these possible worlds and events are the ones that are taking place in our actual universe. We have to do this because our experience of the actual universe is very limited, finite and incomplete, to gain understanding is to construct imaginative and more complete models of reality than can be gained from sensory experience alone (i.e SQ). Of course we must not forget that these models must make sense of our sensory experience and not distort that experience as S/O metaphysics does. But surely understanding does require us to theorise beyond the limited data we have to work with. It is data we always have to interpret. The problem of induction itself is an admission of the limits of information there is with which to understand what is going on in this universe. David M 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/
