Ian said:
I can't see what it says to John's point about the redundancy ( non pragmatism
) of multiverses / many worlds ?
dmb says:
Did John have a point about redundancy?
In any case, here is the basic idea: John said, "I just don't see the need for
a ridiculous kludge like multi-uni-verse". And I responded with a quote from
James explaining the main idea behind this "ridiculous kludge":
"The truth is too great for any one actual mind, even thought that mind be
dubbed 'the Absolute,' to know the whole of it. The facts and worths of life
need many cognizers to take them in. There is no point of view absolutely
public and universal." (James says in the intro to his "Talks to Teachers")
Basically, James is saying that there is no objective truth, no absolute
reality. Life is too rich and thick to be nailed down by any single view or
perspective. Each of us can only take so much from the flux of life, we can
only select a certain slice or notice a small portion of experience. Each
cognizer can only grapple with a handful of sand from an endless landscape of
experience.
I'd add that "multi-verse" is probably the right word when talking about
physics but this notion that life needs many cognizers is probably better
referred to as a "pluralistic universe" simply because we are not living in
different universes so much as we have many different ways to take it.
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
