John, On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan, > > Its good to hear from you.
Good to hear from you too, John! I received the book yesterday but haven't had a chance to get into it yet. Thank you! Your copy of Lila's Child should be arriving to you any day now. > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From Religion without God: >> >> "Here is an ancient philosophical problem. Is there a way the universe >> just is? Not for any reason but just because that is the way it >> happens to be? > > > Jc: I'd say yes. The Universe is it's own finite cause. Dan: So you're saying the universe is its own finite value? > > > >> Will theoretical physics one day hit a wall that means >> there is just nothing more for it to learn? > > > > Jc: That's not a question of the nature of the universe so much as it is a > question of theoretical physicists. The Phaedrus hypothesis is the > hypothesizing is infinite so it's just a question of when they get tired. Dan: Isn't the goal of theoretical physics to explain the nature of the universe? I tend to see it as a philosophical question not necessarily restricted to physicists. What Dworkins seems to be asking is: will there come a day when everything in the universe has been explained? > > > >> Will it end just in >> pointing a finger at what just happens to be? >> >> "The philosopher Gottfried Leibniz thought that a just-happens-to-be >> solution like that makes no sense. Nothing happens, he said, unless >> there is a "sufficient reason" for its happening. God made the >> universe and so it is a sufficient reason for the universe being the >> way it is that God wanted it that way. >> >> > Jc: that's a ridiculous postulatinon - first of all, causation isn't of > the universe, its of human thought. Secondly, by his logic, Why is there a > God? It's an argument that obviously leads to infinite regress. Dan: Well, the way I read it, you're agreeing with Leibniz. You are saying it is a ridiculous postulation the same way he said it makes no sense. Leibniz said nothing happens without a reason. To ask why is useless. Too, if the MOQ replaces causation with value, you seem to be saying value resides only in human thought. But the MOQ states there are four evolutionary levels of value, not one. > > Jc: > > >> "Bertrand Russell declared that "the universe is just there, and >> that's all." Richard Feynman, who is often called the most important >> physicist since Einstein, said that he could hope to explain how >> things work but not why they work that way. We must just accept, he >> said, "Nature as She is-- absurd." >> >> Dworkin, Ronald (2013-10-01). Religion without God (p. 77). Harvard >> University Press. Kindle Edition. >> >> Dan comments: >> I notice that Robert Pirsig asks much the same questions in Lila: >> >> "Metaphysics is what Aristotle called the First Philosophy. It's a >> collection of the most general statements of a hierarchical structure >> of thought. On one of his slips he had copied a definition of it as >> "that part of philosophy which deals with the nature and structure of >> reality." It asks such questions as, "Are the objects we perceive real >> or illusory? Does the external world exist apart from our >> consciousness of it? Is reality ultimately reducible to a single >> underlying substance? If so, is it essentially spiritual or material? >> Is the universe intelligible and orderly or incomprehensible and >> chaotic?" >> >> I think he answers the questions much like Richard Feynman. He >> explains the how by ordering unfolding experience into four static >> quality levels while simultaneously suggesting the why is beyond >> explanation. >> >>J: > DQ is an explanation. It's not a rigorously logical explanation, (defining > by the indefinable) but it's an explanation. Dan: I would say Dynamic Quality is the process of explanation. Static quality is the explanation. But that doesn't explain why the universe is here, does it? > > Thanks Dan, It's been a while. You're welcome, John. Thank you too. 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
