Craig and the omnipresent Case On 25 Mar. Craig wrote:
> [Case] > > Nowhere in Lila does Pirsig claim he is writing a work on cosmology. I agree with Case. > But his new metaphysics does have repercussions on one's view of > cosmology. ...and kind of with Craig ;-) > [Case] > > Nor does he claim to be upending the law of physics. Ditto. > But he does claim to be upending classical science: > "The only difference between causation and value is that the word > cause implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of > value is one of preference. In classical science it was supposed > that the world always works in terms of absolute certainty [READ: > DETERMINISM] 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. An individual particle is not absolutely > committed to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute > cause is just a very consistent pattern of preferences. Therefore when > you strike cause from the language and substitute value you are > not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful > one; you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual > observation." (RMP, Lila, Chap. 8) At first I thought this was a great idea, but have come to doubt it. We know that "static inorganic patterns of value" (SIPOV) isn't the matter that intellect - through physics - is concerned with - Pirsig goes to great lengths to show the difference in LILA, and it is impossible to do science on the said SIPOV without intellect's S/O premises!! That would be like a field marshal meddling with what his highest division commander knows best. The inorganic level does not consist of "particles" that have discussions if they are in the mood to obey the natural laws or not. The natural laws themselves - causation included - are as inorganic value too. Where the MOQ makes wonderful sense is its overall metaphysical arrangement. It does not bother me the least to read or hear about physicists searching for the "bottom" of the physical world or the beginning of time (and always finding a deeper layer) as long as I know the explanation (of their failure), namely not because the inorganic level consists of particles unable to make up their "minds", but because intellect's S/O approach is incomplete ... yet an enormous value. IMO Bo. 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/
