> > [Krimel} > > You call this reductionist. I suppose it looks that way from the Top > Down. > > But it you start where is actually seems to start, at the bottom, it > > looks more like emergence, from simple phantom particles to sequoias. > > [Platt] > Emergence from simple phantom particles to sequoias. How? Why? Shazam! > A miracle! > > > [Krimel] > > I see complex order emerging spontaneously from the simple and > chaotic. > > [Platt] > Order emerging spontaneously. How? Why? Shazam! Another miracle > > Both science and religion assume an orderly world. Science says this order > evolved from the bottom up over time through self-organization and chance. > Religion says this order came from top down from the mind of God who is > eternal. > > Top down or bottom up. Both based on miracles. Both based on faith. > > How to decide? > > "In the end, Occam's razor compels me to put my money on design, but, as > always in matters of metaphysics, the decision is largely a matter of > taste > rather than scientific judgment." --- Physicist Paul Davies > > A third alternative: "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge > of realty, THE SOURCE Of ALL THINGS, completely simple and always new." > (Lila, 9 -- caps added for emphasis) > > For my taste, the third alternative is best. > > [Krimel] > So the choices are: > > A) "Poof" > > B) A set of interlocking theories that explain the relationship of every > observable phenomena from particles to sequoias in terms of the > conditions > that give rise to them and their patterns of interaction. Most of this > can > be described not only mathematically but empirically. It allows an > understanding of most of the processes that have been going on, back to > the > first instant in which it is even possible to conceive of time. It shows > empirically and mathematically how order forms and become static in the > face > of the pure dynamic quality of absolute chaos. It tells us about the > unimaginably small and the inconceivably large. It explains why we feel > love > and fear and how many seconds of burn a space shuttle needs to re-enter > Earth's atmosphere. It expands our conscious awareness into the > stratosphere > and lets us speak to each from opposite sides of the planet. > > In the spirit of Occam's it offers and ever shrinking number of simple > concepts to explain all of this without the need for some supernatural > outside Other. All of this in as much fine detail that people spend > their > lives exploring even its most obscure reaches. > > It invites questions, critical thinking and a healthy degree of > skepticism. > It invites us to exploit skills that every newborn is biologically > prepared > to do: Check it out! Mess with it. See what happens... Repeat. > > And because it doesn't explain absolutely everything to you personally > in > terms you can understand you want to chuck the whole business in favor > of > "Poof". Somebody out there loves you. How sweet! > > Einstein, Wilson and Skinner or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? > > I think you have made the right choice. It would be a shame to let a > little > studying ruin your meal.
Study? You can study by scientific methods until the cows come home and you won't come up with any better answers to fundamental questions of how and why there is "poof," "oops," "Shazam" and "spontaneous emergence" than that offered by Paul Davies and Robert Pirsig (and hundreds of other smart people). Call me crazy, but somehow I have more confidence in their conclusions than yours, especially when yours and those of your science friends lead mankind to this: "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just functions. Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?" (Lila,22) Explaining physical processes I'll leave to science with its simple concepts of observation and measurement. Explaining life and living I'll explore with philosophers and artists with their intuition and imagination that breaks the bonds of static methodology to soar into territory familiar to angels. 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/
