Hi again
Those that first proposed the world to be round, instead of flat, were
the source of much laughter.
Yes, but the difference between the round-world scientists and philosophers
stating that nothing is real, is that the former had a constructive theory as
opposed to the philosophers that are being very destructive. What would be the
point of doing science if nothing was real anyway?
In the MOQ there are no
things-in-themselves. This is clearly stated in the Copleston paper.
Must have missed that, any pointers?
The MOQ does not invalidate everything that physics, and all other
sciences has ever accomplished. It now views these accomplishments from
a broader perspective. It's mutually, interdependent, static patterns
of value instead of things-in-themselves. Hasn't physics been moving in
that direction any ways?
Sure, we can call things a combination of static patterns instead. But both the
static patterns and the combination of them are just as *real* nevertheless. If
a crane drops a piano over your head, and the piano starts accelerating toward
you at 9.81 m/s^2, you can't avoid being hit by it by viewing it from a "broader
perspective".
When physics is investigating small stuff, like quarks and such, it's true that
they don't find much that resembles *things*, i.e. hard stuff that hurts when
you get hit by them. But that doesn't mean that the piano (which is made of lots
of those quarks and such) *doesn't* hurt when it hits.
The explanation is that the "quarks and such" are of a lower level than what is
required to hurt. It's like asking "what colour has an up-quark?", or "how does
an electron smell?". But once you get above that level where mass is introduced,
hurt gets very real.
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/
