At 09:16 AM 9/19/2008, you wrote:
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?
Magnus,
Nobody is stating nothing is real. Mutually, interdependent, static
patterns of value is a better description.
In the MOQ there are no things-in-themselves. This is clearly
stated in the Copleston paper.
Must have missed that, any pointers?
First page, first paragraph.
http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm
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".
You are right. I wouldn't want to be it by it.
It is difficult to predict what this new world-view will give to
us. It hasn't really been adopted by Western science, so who's to
know. But it is a better, more accurate point-of-view. Seeing the
world as a network of interconnected systems (patterns), will be an
improvement. And you can quote me on that.;-) Don't you think so?
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.
And it doesn't mean that the idea of one independent, falling piano
is the best point-of-view either.
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.
Have all the interrelated causes and conditions been considered for
why that piano fell? And why that piano was there as opposed to
somewhere else, and etc., and etc. and etc... There are
interconnections in all directions that may be relevant. I have very
little knowledge concerning science, so if I go on I will only make a
bigger fool of myself, I hope my point makes sense.
We are now strangling in the narrow view.
Marsha
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
