Hi all,
Jonathan wrote:
> The universe is complete (UNI) * BY DEFINITION *. i.e. it IS an axiom. As
soon as
> the universe starts to look incomplete, then what we are looking at is
> something less than the whole universe.
Sam's question: this is indeed what I was groping towards, but I think there
is one more thing to emerge, which I might be able to dig out by asking a
further question - why does "everything" count as a closed system in the way
that a completely-describable-system-that-is-subject-to-the-second-law
counts as a closed system? It just seems to me that the universe taken as a
whole is unique (by definition) and that therefore what we see is an
assumption - more or less justifiable dependent upon other parts of your
world view.
To bring it back to MoQ questions; surely our physically observable and
describable universe is only a part of all that there is, in other words,
the physical laws and so on are valid and complete, but only in so far as
they apply to the first level, inorganic patterns of value. If we are taking
the universe as a whole, which is unique and contains not only all the
different levels of value but also that from which those patterns are
generated (quality) - why should the laws taken from a proper description of
the first level apply to the whole?
That's part one of my response to Jonathan. Part two: Jonathan wrote -
> I can go on repeating this till I am blue in the face, but the context of
this
> discussion (Religion/God) is interesting. There are two commonly held
views of
> "God".
> 1. God as a power working WITHIN the physical Universe (i.e. NATURAL).
> 2. God as a power working from outside the physical Universe (i.e.
> supernatural).
Firstly, I think it would be fair to say that there are rather more commonly
held views of God than these two, not least because orthodox Christianity
would claim that both are true (in traditional terms, God is both immanent -
within the universe - and transcendent - beyond the universe). So posing
these as binary alternatives is not quite right.
Secondly, we need to be careful when combining the languages of
natural/supernatural with language about God/religion (or indeed the MoQ!).
The contemporary distinction between natural and supernatural means
(roughly) a distinction between that which can be accounted for by the laws
of science and that which cannot, and derives largely from the scientific
revolution. That revolution itself was built upon the rejection of the
Christian world view that preceded it - and, I would argue, is also
incompatible with the MoQ. In other words, for orthodox Christianity there
is NO room for something supernatural in the modern sense - but that leads
us into another very large area of debate. It may be better to look at it in
MoQ terms - is a dynamic breakthrough into a higher level something that
counts as supernatural? I would say not, but it is not something which can
be fully described or explained in terms of the lower levels.
Jonathan wrote:
>
> The Universe is true to its nature. This is the celestial order of all
things.
I have a *lot* of sympathy with this. Again, to put things in MoQ terms, I
would say that the ability to tune in to DQ and allow for DQ experiences,
including the static latching thereof, rests to quite a large extent on
acknowledging our own natures and allowing them to flourish. As such, I
would count myself on the libertarian side of the fence, in my basic
assumptions about how to move forward.
Cheers,
Sam
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
