Hi Sam, Platt and all,
SAM (Elizaphanian)
> 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, . . .
I maintain that "all that there is" in fact IS observable in principle, but
there are practical limits on how much and how well we observe. Thus, I accept
that there are UNKNOWN apsects of reality, but reject that there are
UNKNOWABLE parts of reality. IMO the very idea of an unknowable reality is an
oxymoron.
> 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?
Here I disagree. I know that most physical laws are framed in reference to
"inorganic patterns of value". Framed in these terms, they apply only
indirectly to patterns of other levels BUT THEY STILL APPLY. We must remember
too though that physical laws are also framed in mathematical terms. Claude
Shannon took the equations of thermodynamics and showed that they could apply
equally well to communication signals and codes. Similarly, there is a lot in
common between linguistic analysis and analysis of DNA sequences.
>
> That's part one of my response to Jonathan. Part two: Jonathan wrote -
>
> > 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.
>
Sam, this is a contradiction - you can't have it both ways. If you restrict
the definition of the Universe to EXLUDE emergent properties, then new
patterns (like God) may fall outside.
This is indeed the relationship between the world of science and orthodox
Christianity. I've not read any Spinoza directly, but suspect that his
"excommunication" by the Jewish community relects the same science vs.
religion attitude.
> 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.
This is the same rift. As a scientist, I believe that the problem was the
Church's failure to embrace the scientific world view. e.g. refusing to accept
the reality of what Copernicus and Galileo were saying. As the dominant social
force of its day, the Church has a lot to answer for. The animosity and
divisions that resulted are still a festering wound in our culture.
I think that the wound can be healed in a wholesome and scientific way by
considering the Universe to be INCLUSIVE of all its emergent properties. Such
a unified view is a much better backdrop to Pirsig's attempts to unify art,
science and religion. In this context, the transcendence mentioned by Sam is
not an escape from the confines of the Universe, but the emergence of new
patterns within the Universe, but at a "higher" level of complexity.
> 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.
If this is true, then Christianity and Science are on a path of convergence.
PLATT
<<<So it seems you are up against two widely held scientific assumptions-
-a reality independent of human observation and a mechanistic cause
of all phenomena. I hope your next essay will tackle these
assumptions head on even if your fellow scientists will be tempted to
drum you out of the corps along with Glenn and a few other dedicated
science types in the LS. (-:>>>
I don't think there is any real problem Platt, simplicistic science is for
technicians and the layman. Whether they like to philosophise or not, I'm sure
that most would welcome my closing statement from my previous post as a
mantra.
> > The Universe is true to its nature. This is the celestial order of all
> > things.
>
If you don't believe that, there is no point in doing science!
So when SAM says:
> I have a *lot* of sympathy with this.
I'm not surprised, but would be delighted if he agrees also out of a
"religious" perspective.
What do you say Sam?
Jonathan
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
