Ian and DM (Chris mentioned) --
[Ham said to David]:
> Humans can imagine lots of things, but imagination has
> no claim on logic, and conjuring up multi-universes violates
> Occam's razor without resolving the problem of creation.
[Ian]:
> (1) Reality has no monopoly on logic either.
> And
> (2) Multiverses do not "violate" Occam.
> God does not violate Occam any less.
> (Occam is a rule of thumb, not a fundamental "law" anyway.)
>
> "first cause" (creation, if you prefer) is an unresolved
> metaphysical loophole everywhere. I don't find that a
> surprising issue. My suspicion is there probably always
> will be this "hole" in any empirical (experience = reality)
> sense. Even a near-perfect metaphysics would be
> contingent at this point.
A "contingent" of what? If God is your "first cause", then that is your
"metaphysical loophole", although what you call a "loophole" I call a
logical necessity. Since nothing comes from nothing, the concept of a
supra-natural source is the missing link in our understanding of reality.
The MoQ avoids a first cause, considering reality (or the experience of it)
as the evolving physical universe. Pirsig's metaphysics is incomplete with
this omission.
Incidentally, I did not say (as you reported to Chris) that metaphysics was
"only a theory". I said that only a theory can answer the question of the
primary cause. Metaphysics is theoretically formulated, but it can also be
a belief system, just as the MoQ has apparently become.
[Ian]:
> To my mind, the core problem, is that in order to
> "differentiate" some (any) "significant difference"
> first has to exist.
Exactly. And that's where metaphysics comes in. Neither experience nor
empirical science can explain how difference (diversity and relations) is
derived from an undifferentiated primary source. But a well developed
metaphysical thesis can.
In my exploration of philosophy, I've found four plausible concepts of the
"fundamental stuff" of reality: Beingness, Consciousness, Value, and
Essence. In my view, the first three are derivational contingencies that
presuppose a prior source. Only Essence ("is-ness") can logically encompass
all three as an absolute unity. Difference--consciousness of value as
objectivized value--can be explained as the negation or "reduction" of this
primary unity. This is what I have attempted to do in my Philosophy of
Essence.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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/
