Greetings, (I just got Jonathan's posting through. Comment in the P.S.)
Platt, just because Pirsig writes something down it doesn't mean it is right.
--------------------
PIRSIG:
In general, given a CHOICE of two courses TO FOLLOW and all other things
being equal, that CHOICE which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level of
evolution, is more moral. (Chap.13, emphasis added.)
STURAN:
. . . following dq does not equate to having a choice to do so.
PLATT:
Flatly contradicted in the quote cited above.
-----------------------
So Pirsig tells us that it is a choice to follow dq. Simply repeating it again does
not make it
right.
---------------------
>STRUAN:
>Randomness is the antithesis of free will . . .
>
>PLATT:
>Irrelevant, a red herring. DQ is not randomness.
---------------------
I did not say it was. Clearly I made two points in that sentence. One aimed at
randomness and one
aimed at following dq. The point I made about dq is that following it does not
necessarily mean
having the choice to follow it. Your accusation has no foundation and still you fail
to address the
point.
Your posting was one quotation after another showing how Pirsig insists we have free
will and your
only attempt to posit a positive argument, rather than straight contradiction, in
favour of that
position was this:
---------------------
PIRSIG:
In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in terms of
absolute certainty and that �cause� is the more appropriate word to describe
it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed. Particles �PREFER�
to do what they do. (Lila, Chap. 8, emphasis added)
PLATT:
PREFER presupposes CHOICE. Bertrand Russell confirms Pirsig�s insight.
He said, �So far as quantum theory can say at present, atoms might as well
be possessed of free will, limited, however to one of several possible
choices�.
--------------------
Again. Pirsig can say what he wants. I would love to hear of a quantum physicist or
sensible
philosopher of science who would back him up, WHILE NOT BEING IRONIC. Russell (on of
my favourites)
does nothing of the sort. Read the quotation again with my emphases; "So far as
quantum theory can
say AT PRESENT, atoms MIGHT AS WELL be possessed of free will, limited, however to one
of several
possible choices." He does not suggest for one second that they are possessed of free
will and it
seems reasonably obvious that he is simply drawing attention to our lack of knowledge
at the time he
wrote.
Quantum physics has not changed the most appropriate word from 'cause' to 'prefer'
this is absolute
nonsense. Quantum physics (in this context) says nothing more than that we cannot have
a complete
scientific picture of the world because we cannot (in principle and practice) measure
it. As Stephen
Hawking says,
"We can still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely
for some
supernatural being who could observe the present state of the universe without
disturbing it." (A
Brief History of Time 1988 pg 55)
Or as my colleague Steve Adams writes in his new book,
"Since the universe contains some deterministic and some non-deterministic systems it
means that
parts of it are unpredictable (even without quantum theory). However, it does not mean
that they are
not governed by deterministic processes - in fact this characteristic is often
referred to as
deterministic chaos. The point is that all measurements have some error associated
with them."
(Frontiers; Twentieth Century Physics 2000 pg 421)
The scientific view is that non-deterministic systems evolve, out of underlying
deterministic
processes. Furthermore, if they are not observed they behave deterministically. Of
course there is
no empirical evidence for this but it has been proved mathematically with Schrodingers
equation,
which I can't write out here due to lack of special characters, and it is the accepted
position of
almost every physicist. There is no 'preference,' the particles just do it in the same
way as my x
key produces an x on the screen whenx I prxessx itxx.
What does this mean for Pirsig's claim that preference is involved? Well, it means
that he cannot
appeal to quantum physics for empirical or theoretical support and I advise everyone
to read his
book with that in mind because he comes out with some of the most preposterous
strawmen I have ever
seen when writing about it.
What does it mean for Pirsig's claim about free will? Well, it means that he might as
well have just
written, "We have it 'cos I say so." If that is good enough for you, then fine.
What does this mean for this debate? Well, it means that the pro-Pirsigian free will
arguers will
have to address the questions presented with a bit more than 'ad hoc' hypotheses,
atrocious science
and misleading quotations. The funny thing about all this is that I have supported the
notion of
free will. I have shown how it is a valid notion with the only objection being that
Pirsig missed
the real issue.
PLATT:
"But you�re not free under the canons of intellectual morality to misrepresent the
MoQ."
But . . . . . splutter . . . . cough . . . . . I . . . . ahem . . . Pirsig . . . you .
. . . . good
grief . . . . . what about . . . . . flippin' 'eck . . . . . cough . . . . pots . . .
. kettles . .
. . oh bugger it!
Struan
P.S. Jonathan:
"Please be very careful when talking about randomness. I've repeatedly
tried to make the point that randomness is not an objective property and
obviously I've failed miserably."
Not quite, as I am sure you will see if you have read the above. I have only used the
term random in
deliberate and specific contexts. Your comment does reiterate my point that quantum
mechanics, the
uncertainty principle and random events have no bearing whatsoever on free will and we
would do well
not to fall into Pirsig's trap of conflating them.
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
