At 1:06 PM on 3/30 Krimel wrote:
> I think the problem I have is this notion of possibility without > limits which is what I take Ham's absolute potential to mean. > This would allow for a universe where two things occupy > the same space at the same time or where 6=9. Even if you > allow for a multiverse in which different universes are allowed > to evolve from differing sets of physical laws each set of such > laws defines or sets limits on what is possible within it. First, to clarify my position, I have defined Essence (for causative purposes) as absolute potentiality, not absolute "possibility". Possibility is not a creative agent, and entities do not create themselves. Nothing is possible without the potential to be. Potentiality is the source of all differentiated entities. It is actualized as contrariety of beingness whose primary contingency is the self/other dichotomy, and it is manifested in the polarity of being/nothingness, time/space, subject/object, male/female, true/false, good/bad. etc. Secondly, in existence (i.e., S/O experience) order and configuration are the subject's sensory-intellectual construct of Value which is the difference between subject and object. Since it is the subject whose logical and mathematical precepts determine the order of physical reality, the world can never violate the "possible" parameters set by the subjective intellect. This does not mean than Potentiality is "limited", but only that the universe as constructed by consciousness is consistent with the range of possibility perceived by the "constructor". The bottom line is that the statistics of probability analysis define your intellectual precept rather than the fundamentals of reality. > The point of a metaphysics is to look for sets of rules hold or set > limits on what is required to have any set of physical rules at all. > I would say uncertainty (Quality) is such a metaphysical law. > Stasis (SQ) and change (DQ) would make my list. > But I have a pretty short list. Rules and definitions are critical to metaphysical dialectics, but they are not "the point of metaphysics". This is like saying that measurements and numbers are the point of physics, or that the alphabet is the point of language. The purpose of any intellectual methodology is to gain knowledge or insight about reality. In the objective sciences, data confirmed by repeated experiments and the predictability of their results give us new ways to solve problems. In philosophy, intuition and the principles of logic can lead to the development of theories which, while unprovable, can provide plausible explanations for the universe and man's existence. I'm curious as to how you would define "uncertainty" as a law. Nothing is certain? What is true may be false? I exist although I don't exist? Also, what is the "law" of Quality? Pirsig has made quality his primary reality. That is a theoretical principle, not a law, as I understand it. How would you state this principle or postulate as a law? Regards, 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/
