Hi Marsha
You wrote "I think you (Bo) and many others"? Who else are you addressing?
Can't think of anyone in particular right now, but since my view of the MoQ's
levels quite recently evolved because some observations didn't quite fit in my
old view, I'd say that I can find some pile of "r" in every other view.
On the other hand, most others here are quite fuzzy when it comes to details
about the levels, they mostly claim they are just one convenient way to view
reality, not reality in itself.
You are not talking about things-in-themselves, are you? Because they
do no exist within the MOQ. Right? This is, of course, related to my
question in the Pattern thread.
Yes, I saw that. But yes, I'm talking about things-in-themselves. What else? And
I very much think they exist within the MoQ, otherwise I wouldn't be so dead set
on trying to explain them within the MoQ's levels.
Think of it this way. If the MoQ were to say that things doesn't really exist,
it would invalidate everything that physics, and all other sciences, have ever
accomplished. It would say something like:
- Well, guys, it's very convincing and such, but I'm afraid non of it is real
cause we can't make heads or tails of it philosophically.
Then science would simply laugh at philosophy and go on with its own business
anyway. But I think philosophy *can* help, but then it must of course
acknowledge the reality of what the sciences are doing, and that's a big part of
what my latest essay is about.
Magnus
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/
