Hi Ham, Do I detect a possible movement in the direction of accepting the MOQ? By pursuing the value connection in explaining the reason why there is something rather than nothing -- the philosopher's Gordian Knot -- you appear on the brink of a breakthrough. Be that as it may, I think many of us will be interested in how your dialog with Witherall transpires. I know I will be.
Best regards, Platt Quoting Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi Platt -- > > > > If you posit that the universe evolved in order to observe itself, > > then it has a lot to do with us. If you say the universe evolved > > for no reason at all, then you end up in a wasteland where > > "Each individual in his cell of isolation was told that no matter > > how hard he tried, no matter how hard he worked, his whole life > > is that of an animal that lives and thinks like any other animal. > > He could invent moral goals for himself, but they are just > > artificial inventions. Scientifically speaking he has no goals." > > (Lila, 22) I prefer the former scenario to the latter. > > What you are describing is the Anthropic Principle I introduced here under a > Value heading. It asserts that the universe is "fine-tuned" so as to permit > life to exist as we know it. Were the universe not fine tuned in this > fashion, human beings would not exist, hence could not observe the universe. > When you tie this in with Value (DQ?), as Arthur Witherall did in his > seminal essay, you then have a workable teleology that supports your idea. > > As Witherall stated it: "Since the question is why rather than how the world > came to be, it seems appropriate to say that it came to be in order to > realize goodness. This would mean that existence has a purpose, which is > the realization of value." This is compatible with the "moral thrust" of > the MoQ, except that it is man's realization of Value, rather than the > "experience" of rocks and things, that creates the objective world. (I also > suspect this is what Micah is hinting at by insisting that everything is > objective -- that is, from the perspective of the subject.) > > I've been in touch with the author, who apparently has since moved into the > Information Technology field, and he's suggested several additional > references to a value-based ontology. I plan to run a substantial portion > of his essay on "The Fundamental Question" in my Values column next week. > > Like Pirsig, Arthur claims he's "no longer an academic," but he clearly has > a firm grasp on contemporary metaphysics. I'm hoping he'll be interested > enough in my thesis to offer some needed guidance. If this works out, I > have reason to believe it may help resolve, or at least codify, some of the > controversial issues remaining in the MoQ. I'm optimistic because I > understand what Witherall is saying and, considering that you find Leslie's > jargon unintelligible, seeking out another academic source at this time > would be an exercise in futility. Although Witherall says "you will almost > certainly find Leslie a better resource than Rescher," neither Leslie nor > Rescher lay out the anthropic principle as a valuistic premise with the > clarity that he does. > > If you're interested in how this dialogue transpires, I'll keep you > informed. > > Best regards, > Ham > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
