Ian said to John, Andre, DMB:
Increasing value is a better empirical view than causation, but this isn't any
easier to explain (eg to a MoQish judge)
dmb says:
Huh?
I'm going to assume you're talking about the way the MOQ replaces "cause" with
"preference".
As Pirsig points out, "preference" is an empirically meaningful term and it is
more appropriate to quantum physics because of the way it fits the actual
observations. Causality makes more sense in a mechanistic, law-like Newtonian
universe where causal relations are imagined in terms of substances bumping
into substances like so many billiard balls. But down in the subatomic realm
particles can interact at a distance and you can interfere with way events
unfold even after they've taken place.
"The only difference between causation and value is that the word 'cause'
implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of 'value' is one of
preference. In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in
terms of absolute certainty and that 'cause' is the more appropriate word to
describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed. Particles
'prefer' to do what they do. An individual particle is not absolutely committed
to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute cause is just a
very consistent pattern of preferences. Therefore, when you strike 'cause' from
the language and substitute 'value' you are not only replacing an empirically
meaningless term with a meaningful one; you are using a term that is more
appropriate to actual observation." (Lila, page 104)
But there is more to it than that. Usually, causation is projected upward so
that you get various kinds of determinism with respect to human behavior. In
this view, all of reality is one long chain of causality from top to bottom and
there is no such thing as free will, as if we can do nothing except obey the
laws of cause and effect. By contrast, preferences are projected from the top
down. We know what it's like to jump off a hot stove, to like peas rather than
carrots, to read a clear and concise explanation as opposed to a confusing and
long-winded one and when we observe other animals and life forms - even down to
single-celled organisms - it certainly appears that they have preferences too.
It fits our experience as it is lived and felt and it fits our experience in
terms of scientific observation.
And of course he wants to push preferences all the way down because that means
quality goes all the way down. In other words, "preferences" are not just more
appropriate way to describe the data in physics, it has a unifying power within
the MOQ. It gives says that the ability to respond to Quality is completely
ubiquitous throughout reality. Doesn't that make you feel at home? Go ahead,
pull up a chair. Put up your feet.
You like carrots and I like peas.You like parrots and I like keys.
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/md/archives.html
