yes DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [MD] RelationalmetaphysicsandtheHolographicPrincipleTheoryofMind
> DM, > > The present is fixed enough to make certain things in either direction > impossible. Probabilities radiate in both directions. > > Krimel > > ------------------------------ > Krim > > The past is fixed enough to make certain things > in the present impossible. > > DM > ------------------------------ >> DM, >> >> The dice example is one reason I prefer probability to possibility. The >> closer one is to the NOW moment or Whitehead's actual occasion the more >> restricted the realm of the possible becomes. At the moment of >> actualization >> probability is at 100%. It happens. Moving into the future or into the >> past >> we are once again in the realm of probability/possibility. I get the >> feeling >> the Whitehead regards the past as fixed. I do not. >> >> Krimel >> >> --------------------------- >> Krim >> >> Not for me, when we role a dice it has six very well >> defined possibilities, only one of which will form its >> situation on landing. Same goes for all other processes. >> Including new ones, like what will be the >> properties of a new material we create? We have some idea >> what these might be, but we can only discover the actual >> properties by creating the material. Or we fight a war. >> Many outcomes are possible, limited in range by the outset >> (which we may not be able to fully foresee), >> yet which of the outcomes will occur is uncertain. Such is life >> not just thought. >> >> DM >> >> ------------------------------------------- >>> DM, >>> >>> I am pretty sure Whitehead saw himself as adding yet another footnote to >>> Plato, a lengthy and complex one to be sure. I am troubled by the idea >>> of >>> these forms or ideals or primordial nature just floating around in some >>> kind >>> of Star Trek like subspace, waiting to be actualized. Haven't ruled it >>> out >>> but it just doesn't feel right. I think I know what you mean by this >>> realm >>> of the possible. That is to say I know what I mean by it. But when we >>> are >>> making a distinction between out interior reality and TiTs all of this >>> ideal >>> stuff seems more a product of the former than the later. >>> >>> Krimel >>> >>> ---------------------- >>> Krim >>> >>> Plato and Whitehead are rather different. Plato suggested ideal forms >>> to explain universals. Whitehead is concerned with process and is >>> trying to describe it. He is therefore forced to look at the status of >>> the >>> many possible outcomes a situation possesses. For Whitehead a process >>> occurs when a single possible (of many) is chosen to become actual >>> (one). >>> I cannot see any other or better way to describe process. Without the >>> possible we are stuck with a reality of combinations where nothing truly >>> new ever emerges. Plato's forms are a limited set of ideals, >>> Whitehead's includes all possible forms. As Shimon Malin argues, >>> Whitehead's >>> philosophy fits very well with QT. I'd suggest the actual is a subset of >>> the >>> >>> possible, >>> that what is expressed in the actual is an exploration or journey >>> through >>> the possible, >>> i.e. one particular journey or path through it. A journey we help to >>> direct, >>> >>> but >>> influenced by what hasgone before, so that we can only keep walking from >>> where we are standing, where we have reached. If the cosmos collapses >>> and re-bangs, we could enjoy another journey from the sphere of the >>> anything >>> is possible, through another expression/iteration =actuality. >>> >>> DM >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> DM, >>>> >>>>>From what I have gathered on this I think Whitehead makes the same >>>>>mistake >>>> as Plato in thinking the world of forms (primordial nature of God) is >>>> more >>>> real than the grubby one we live in. I prefer to think the world of >>>> forms >>>> is >>>> abstracted from this one by scrubbing off the rough edges. >>>> >>>> Krimel >>>> >>>> ------------------------- >>>> >>>> Krim >>>> >>>> Good point I think, cos Whitehead addressed this himself >>>> I believe. You have to cut to the key aspects and zoom >>>> in and out. >>>> >>>> DM >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> [Krimel] >>>>>> Any idea why Whitehead felt the need to explain ongoing creation >>>>>> instant >>>>>> by >>>>>> instant? It would seem that beyond the initial mystery of the Big >>>>>> Bang >>>>>> and >>>>>> the creation of space/time things roll along pretty smoothly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> DM: Sure I covered this, because every situation has a large number >>>>> of possible futures and each moment requires a decision-event as to >>>>> which >>>>> of the many possibles becomes the next actual situation. And as >>>>> Shimon Malin points out, quantum theory agrees. >>>>> >>>>> [Krimel] >>>>> True enough but having to metaphysically analyze moment to moment not >>>>> only a >>>>> whole new universe but a whole new set of rules for it gets really old >>>>> really quick. The assumption of continuity between the past, present >>>>> and >>>>> future seems not only pragmatically justified but a real time saver. >>>>> >>>>> It's like I don't mind the occasional probing question but only up >>>>> until >>>>> the point that a migraine sets in. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > > 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/ > 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/
