> [Krimel] > 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.
[Ham] 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. [Krimel] What is the difference between potentiality and possibility and how does potential become 'causal' and creative? [Ham] 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. [Krimel] Saying that we build an inner representation of our experience is not the same as "constructing" something. Determining what the order of physical reality is, is not that same as determining 'that' it is. What you are talking about here may apply to subjective understanding but has nothing whatever to do with the physical world and the rules that apply to it. [Ham] 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. [Krimel] The possibility of proof is imbedded in the concept of the term theory as I understand it. We've been through this many times. [Ham] 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? [Krimel] You are quite right I meant principle. Uncertainty has been shown to be unavoidable in physics, mathematics and logic. The only certainty I know of is Descartes cogito but it provides precious little to work with. [Ham] 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? [Krimel] In this universe Quality is manifest as pairs of opposites. The primary pair is active and passive; static and dynamic. 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/
