Hi Mr Buchanan, to honour your explanation about multi-verse, i did some efforts to download and to actually read some work of William James, especially in regard of Talks to Teachers, it is of stunning quality all the way, and your analysis/abstraction of what James is coining is correct , i found it back in the introduction of Talks to....., Of course it will take me some time to study the material completely, ..But if i have questions , i will not hesitate to ask you to clarify on some issue's raised. Found already a superb issue on free will in it , what a pearl. I found it all in a good pdf form, with ocr capabilities.Nice.
I was very sick for some days now, this was about the only achievement i made,did read some comments right now , pff, redundancy,...i think the question about redundancy is redundant in this appearance, It serves no purpose. Your end sentence is a mighty sword Mr Buchanan, it carry's the spirit of the philosopher/scientist. Thx for reading Adrie 2010/9/25 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > 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 > -- parser 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
