Hi Dan Maybe this will help: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23797-after-finitude-an-essay-on-the-necessity-of-contingency/
David M On Sunday, 28 April 2013, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM, David Morey <[email protected] >wrote: > >> Hi Dan >> >> Dan: >> That's my thinking as well. We create reality, not the other way around. >> And those who fight against this notion are so convinced they are >> independent observers of a separate reality it is impossible to reason with >> them. They throw up a whole host of reasons why this cannot possibly be so. >> >> Personally I would avoid saying we create reality, rather I'd say that the >> only reality we directly know is >> experienced reality. > > > Dan: > Yes, I know you would avoid saying that. I disagree. The way you put > it--experienced reality--we experience a separate reality. Not in the MOQ: > instead, experience is primary. Concepts of reality arise from experience > but these concepts are not experience. We create our reality; reality does > not create us. > > > >> But where does this leave the idea of what reality might transcend our >> individual >> experience, or general human experience, or the reality that we assume >> existed prior to human beings >> or life on Earth. > > > Dan: > How can anyone know that one way or the other? > > > >> I know what status I give it, it is best approached via science, that >> creates theories >> and ideas that go beyond direct experience (by using equipment for >> example). Now problematically >> science takes this approach based on SO-Metaphysical thinking. I think >> science can be re-conceptualised >> using MOQ, but In do not think however that this removes the need to see >> scientific theories and ideas >> as about an independent reality that goes on with its processes with or >> without human experience >> 'creating' it. Obviously you could respond that quantum theory does seem >> to suggest such a requirement, >> but this is controversial and I think misses the point about scientific >> theories in general, many if which >> are not based on QT, and the subjective observer-interpretation of QT >> makes no sense without SOM, >> and is really just a way of finding a way to avoid the uncertainty at the >> heart of the collapse of the wave >> function, and perhaps says more about DQ than it does about the >> relationship between experience and >> reality (ie suggesting that no processes take place without observation). >> > > > Dan: > This seems to border upon teetering into incoherence. Honestly, I am not > even sure where to start a rebuttal to this as it is so far off base. For > instance, first you state you would avoid saying we create reality but here > you are contradicting yourself in saying science creates theories and ideas > that go beyond direct experience. Well, yeah. Ideas and theories do not > exist on their own. They arise from the social patterns underpinning > culture. > > You go on to subscribe to an independent reality while simultaneously > deriding subject/object metaphysics which depends upon the notion of an > independent reality. You claim quantum theory makes no sense without > subject/object metaphysics and yet if anything quantum theory has shown > that there is no separation between the observer and the observed. > > > >> >> Again, I do agree that without experience there is no reality, but through >> experience and via science >> we can go on to create an understanding and ideas that allow us to make >> sense of a universe that >> is greater (transcends) what we can fully and directly experience and has >> and will exist before and >> after the lives of all human beings and our species (so rejecting the >> anthropocentrism that DMB >> embraces). To my mind a reconceptualised science in MOQ terms can handle >> such a non-anthropocentric >> reality, and MOQ can also help science to cast off the dualistic SOM >> conceptual problems that currently hinder >> it making progress in areas of dynamic openness and chaos theory and >> dynamic and open conscious processes. >> > > Dan: > We are human beings--at least I will assume everyone reading this is a > human being. Our reality is colored by that. We can never know what nectar > tastes like to a honeybee. None of us will ever understand the world from a > non-anthropocentric point of view. > > If anything, the MOQ explains why this is so. The intellectual patterns > that make up our sciences do not spring out of nowhere. They arise from > social patterns that underpin our culture, our human culture. > > Thank you, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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 > 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
