Hi Peter and all:
I wrote:
By definition uncaused manifestations are either accidents or
miracles.
PETER:
There�s something about our concepts of causality here which is
deeply suspect. The statement presumes that we already have in
place an adequate explanatory framework, sufficiently well fleshed
out that all that is left is dotting the �i�s and crossing the �t�s. But is
that really regarded as so?--are there really no expectations of
causal mechanisms which are as yet totally unhinted at, yet which
may well conform to �science� as we know it. In other words, to
make such a statement, you would have to be saying something
like �we already know most everything, it�s just the details that
have to be worked out.�
I think you make my point by choosing the words �causal
mechanisms.� Causal mechanisms are precisely the explanatory
framework science uses to explain phenomena--like genetic
mutation is the causal mechanism of biological evolution. Science
has yet to find a causal mechanism to explain the Big Bang. If it
does, it will then be challenged to find a causal mechanism for the
causal mechanism that set off the Big Bang, and then the causal
mechanism for the causal mechanism for the causal mechanism
that set off the Big Bang, ad infinitum. If we insist on identifying
understanding with causal mechanisms, we end up inevitably
with infinite regress. The assumption that the Big Bang was
uncaused is just as mythical as the assumption that all events
have a cause. The law of necessary causation is an assumption,
a myth upon which science rests.
PETER:
I�m sorry to nit-pick, but it does seem that your position actually
rests on this assumption, yet it is one which seems logically
insupportable You�ve used the term �by definition,� yet there is no
consensus on the notion of definition which can (yet) withstand
the onslaught of logical dissection; definitions seem to end up
depending on some agreed-upon viewpoint, and hence are the
product of votes, rather than referring to some intrinsic �absolute�
quality.
I�m sorry but I don�t understand quite what you mean. Are you
saying definitions are useless because they are the product of
votes? If so, how does any logical discussion make sense? I�ve
obviously missed something.
Seems to me we have to rely on some �absolute� meanings of
words if we are to converse at all, much less survive. Whether that
tumor in your intestine is �cancerous� or �benign� has an absolute
effect on recommended treatment, your behavior and your peace
of mind.
When I say uncaused manifestations are either accidents or
miracles, I�m simply using commonly accepted meanings of
those terms with no ulterior, hidden assumptions other than that
when things �just happen� there�s an unspoken confession that
the end of science has been reached.
The matter of �absolutes� intrigues me. The whole concept of
many truths, many worlds recognizes that in some contexts or
�worlds,� absolutes are not only acceptable but required, most
obviously in the conceptual worlds of logic and mathematics, i.e.,
A is A, 2+2=4.
But in the �real world� where one must adopt or die (Karl Popper�s
concept), there are also absolutes. You will absolutely starve to
death if you don�t eat; you will absolutely grow no corn if you plant
rocks, you will absolutely not get to the top of Mt. Everest in your
SUV.
In the world of science, there�s a built-in bias against absolutes
because (like Pirsig�s truths in an art gallery) facts are taken
provisionally until something better comes along. The Dynamic
element is not only allowed for but promoted by science, a
characteristic which Pirsig loudly applauds. There is no absolute
knowledge in science, and for good reason�to keep the door
open for DQ. However, science does adhere to at least one
absolute, expressed by British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley:
�Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the
absolute rejection of authority.�
The real danger, of course, comes when one asserts with
absolute conviction, �There are no eternal facts as there are no
absolute truths�. (Nietzche). Then all sorts of mischief transpires,
such as the post modernists attack on science as being simply
another cultural phenomena, no better and no worse than
Voodoo.
In the world of social morals, absolutes again come into play. At
least according to Pirsig:
�But what's not so obvious is that, given a value-centered
Metaphysics of Quality, it is absolutely, scientifically moral for a
doctor to prefer the patient. This is not just an arbitrary social
convention that should apply to some doctors but not to all
doctors, or to some cultures but not all cultures. It's true for all
people at all times, now and forever, a moral pattern of reality as
real as H20.� (Lila, Chap. 13)
In the world of quantum physics, absolutes take a holiday.
Everything appears to be potentiality. Nothing is certain.
Compared to the adopt-or-die world where a bear is absolutely a
bear and not a pussy willow, the quantum world is, as say they,
weird.
My point is that the concept of absolutes or lack thereof is not
absolute. It all depends in what world (and perhaps what level)
you�re in at the time.
PETER:
. . . there really is something genuine about the feeling that we
might find some things more �real� than others. But I�m not sure I
could ever make the case that this could amount to a scientific
observation.
When I assert �The most beautiful is the most real� I�m following a
metaphysical structure that says that reality becomes more
manifest as one rises from the physical through the biological and
social levels up to the intellectual level because consciousness
(mind) becomes more evident the higher one goes. Above the
intellectual level is the aesthetic level (as Pirsig suggests in Chap.
13) which, through our sense of beauty--our highest expression of
consciousness--we get close to DQ�the ultimate reality.
Platt
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
