Hi Adrie Thanks for the below, this may be of interest too:
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-classical-physics-emerge-quantum.html Regards David M ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: >David Morey to Dan. > > >DM: Once again you keep projecting on to me things I don't say or think. >Yes experienced-reality as I call it is the primary reality, it is >experience, >it is reality, it is not a representation of some other reality, >it is primary, we do not experience objects that are somehow separate >from us, everything we experience makes up what we are, what we >experience, it encompasses everything we can talk about, etc. My point >is that it is odd to say that this is all there is to reality, that reality >does >not and cannot exist beyond the realm of human experience. If you say this, >and DMB seems to be saying this too, you are creating an existential >prison, because using the power of thought and I take science as the >exemplar of thinking outside of and beyond our primary experience (as >brilliantly described and conceptualised by the MOQ I would say), we >can discuss and speculate on processes, experiences, histories, events, >etc they go beyond direct human experience. These exist in previous >ages of history or in different parts of the cosmos without being >created (as you put it) by being situated within human experience. >This is not to put these events and processes and histories in terms >of SOM but to see that there are many other unfolding of SQ and >DQ in the cosmos that go beyond human experience and human >experience of SQ and DQ. Sure we only know of these other forms of >SQ and unfolding DQ via our human experience but they clearly go >beyond this, we speculate and can test via empiricism that our toys >go on existing even when we hide them in the cupboard, and we can >accept the evidence we have for our parents having lives before we >were born, and for the existence of a period of time before there >were any human beings. This is not to introduce SOM back into MOQ, >as I do not suggest we are here adding any separate objects into >our experience, rather by reason we must deal in the MOQ with >processes/unfolding of SQ and DQ that go beyond either our individual >or species based experience. Yes I reject that there are any experienced >primary qualities that SOM is based on, we have only SQ and DQ >qualities that SOM calls secondary qualities, but for me MOQ does not have >to be an anthropocentric philosophy, because it can accept that there is >a reality of SQ and DQ that goes beyond the human, this is what MOQ >can reason on the basis of its conceptualisation of primary experience. >Otherwise MOQ becomes Kantianism without SOM language, MOQ then simply >gives us Kantianism without subject and objects by seeing >things-in-themselves >as non-existent, so that all reality is human reality, unable to exist >without >human co-relationism. Heidegger probably makes the same mistake, as >he also replaces Kant's SOM approach with a Dasein formulated understanding >of experience, but equally he is unable to offer a way to make sense of >time before human conscious experience. You are so barking up the wrong tree >when you think my challenge is bring back SOM into the MOQ, continental >philosophy rejected SOM years ago, very old hat stuff now, but the problem >with continental philosophy is its disconnect from science, and MOQ is >falling into the same trap I believe given this anthropocentrism you and >DMB seem to be advocating. Science has its own dualist, materialist, >SOM problems, and MOQ and its good approach to SQ and DQ could >be good conceptual tools for addressing these problems in science, >but the isolation in human experience as if there are no other unfoldings >of SQ and DQ beyond what humans are experiencing prevents any >hope of engagement between the MOQ and science it seems to me. >I am not saying this position that you are taking is worthless, it is an >improvement on SOM, but it isolates MOQ from science in exactly the >same way as continental philosophy is isolated. The Speculative Realist >school of thought is very new and very active and is precisely opening >up this problem and addressing this issue by putting realism back into >philosophy and conceptual thought. Where MOQ says DQ, SR is talking >about openness and contingency as disallowing determinism and >the illusion that the world and experience can be understood in terms >of just laws or justv objects or even just SQ I might add. > >comment Adrie > >find the flaws or waffle around them > > > >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1658/1/Anthropic_Explanations_in_Cosmology_.pdf > >Idea's come first, idea's produce matter, idea's generate the world we live >in.... >was a proposal made by John Wheeler in it from bit. >He called it the participatory anthropic priciple > > > > >It was never accepted,and later on,quantum physiks came up with the proof >that a single >elektron can act as an observer,to collaps the wavefunction. >there is no need for the universe so to speak, that there are observers to >make reality >happen. >the idea is thus abandoned. > >I made a statement once , that quantum physiks is partially high-end >philosophy and to avoid >that any or every som dictum is popped,i strongly suggest to read at the >end of the article, > >""instituto de filosofia, Madrid"" > >and in the header the name of the man who wrote the article, Jesus Mosterin >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Moster%C3%ADn > >kind regards, Adrie > > > >2013/5/1 David Morey <[email protected]> > >> Hi Dan >> >> Exactly, the MOQ and Robert Pirsig accept evolution, problem is evolution >> is not compatible with anthropocentrism or experience seen as an idealistic >> prison, so maybe reading these errors into the MOQ is very bad philosophy I >> am suggesting. Thanks for the concern, can assure you the only thing that >> has broken down is a very poor conception of what the MOQ is saying. >> >> All the best >> David M >> >> Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Hello everyone >> > >> >On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, David Morey <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Hi MOQers >> >> >> >> Does SQ and DQ act to give us evolution and create professors >> >> long before anyone ever gets around to coceptualising these >> >> qualities in human experience? The guy who wrote Lila >> >> seems to think this: >> >> >> > >> >Dan: >> > >> >Come on, David. No one is saying that the MOQ denies evolution. What a >> >completely crazy thing to say. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> "The law of gravity, for example, is perhaps the most ruthlessly static >> >> pattern of order in the universe. So, correspondingly, there is no >> single >> >> living thing that does not thumb its nose at that law day in and day >> out. >> >> One could almost define life as the organized disobedience of the law of >> >> gravity. One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys >> this >> >> law is a measure of its degree of evolution. Thus, while the simple >> >> protozoa just barely get around on their cilia, earthworms manage to >> >> control their distance and direction, birds fly into the sky, and man >> goes >> >> all the way to the moon. >> >> A similar analysis could be made with other physical laws such as the >> >> Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it seemed to Phaedrus that if one >> >> gathered together enough of these deliberate violations of the laws of >> the >> >> universe and formed a generalization from them, a quite different >> theory of >> >> evolution could be inferred. If life is to be explained on the basis of >> >> physical laws, then the overwhelming evidence that life deliberately >> works >> >> around these laws cannot be ignored. The reason atoms become chemistry >> >> professors has got to be that something in nature does not like laws of >> >> chemical equilibrium or the law of gravity or the laws of >> thermodynamics or >> >> any other law that restricts the molecules' freedom. They only go along >> >> with laws of any kind because they have to, preferring an existence that >> >> does not follow any laws whatsoever." >> >> >> >> Clearly DQ and SQ can be used to tell a cosmic story that is pre-human >> >> experience and is not in an anthropocentric prison. >> >> I suppose the usual suspects will claim they were never making >> >> anthropocentric restrictions about such reasonable knowledge. >> >> If only they were not so confused in the first place. Funny how post >> >> modernists like Matt used to get blown off, now that the >> >> MOQ seems to have turned into a form of anti-realist post modern >> >> philosophising round here. What a shame, can anyone >> >> help to save the MOQ from this terrible fate? Is quality not real? If >> only >> >> DQ is real and DQ cannot be defined how can there >> >> be truth, SQ can be judged but apparently it is not real as it is not >> >> experienced. Yet Pirsig embraces truth. What has gone wrong >> >> since I was last here? >> > >> > >> >Dan: >> >I am unsure what your problem is--perhaps you are suffering a meltdown; >> >those things have been known to happen here--but it is apparent us talking >> >is doing no one any good. >> > >> >Thank you and good luck, >> > >> >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 >> > > > >-- >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 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
