Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Andre, i agree on your abstraction. Allow me to respond to some conciderations. I will take a leap to show that time is conceptual. suppose we arrive at the exact formulation of the time event. We are there , finally, we see the mechanism, it is there , the equasion--finally, now next question derived from this eureka moment,.What is the duration of time.? and here we go again. we simply don't know , because we cannot know , it will give birth to the next question if we do,DQ? pattern of value? yep, the dynamical caracter of everything of the Giant, every last bit of it. Adrie 2010/9/18 Andre Broersen > > > Craig: > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:25 PM, wrote: > > > [Steve] >> >> >> It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing >>> or >>> >> that something was always around. Which do you think it is? >>> >> > >> > Time is a sequence of changes& time began with the first change. >> > It is a moot point whether the first change was from nothing to >> something or >> > from something to something else. ?Either way there was a beginning& >> > it was a finite time ago. >> > I think that is a good way to dissolve the issue. > > Andre: > The Buddha (wisely) was silent when asked about 'beginnings'. I imagine > acres of forests have been > chopped to fill books with speculations. We simply do not know. > > > 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/md/archives.html > -- parser 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Craig: On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:25 PM, wrote: > [Steve] >> It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or >> that something was always around. Which do you think it is? > > Time is a sequence of changes& time began with the first change. > It is a moot point whether the first change was from nothing to something or > from something to something else. ?Either way there was a beginning& > it was a finite time ago. I think that is a good way to dissolve the issue. Andre: The Buddha (wisely) was silent when asked about 'beginnings'. I imagine acres of forests have been chopped to fill books with speculations. We simply do not know. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Sorry about your "reluctance." Perhaps if I added "conventional" before intellect in my statement it would have been clearer. Do you doubt that most people prefer subject-object metaphysics to any alternative, including the MOQ, even if they knew any alternative which most of them don't? Does your "goodbye" mean you're breaking up with me? On 17 Sep 2010 at 18:56, Andre Broersen wrote: Platt to Steve: Particles act they way that do at the quantum level because they prefer to act that way, just as life prefers to live and replicate and intellect prefers the subject/object division of experience, i.e., the world is moral order and values rule. Do you buy it? Andre: This is yet again a wonderful example of the reason why I am so reluctant to carry on a conversation with you Platt. You start off rather okay but then you sleeze in another one of your interpretations which are totally unsupported, or rather, rejected by Mr. Pirsig...the 'intellect prefers...'crap. Please go to your tea-party Platt. Goodbye. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Craig, On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:25 PM, wrote: > [Steve] >> It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or >> that something was always around. Which do you think it is? > > Time is a sequence of changes & time began with the first change. > It is a moot point whether the first change was from nothing to something or > from something to something else. Either way there was a beginning & > it was a finite time ago. I think that is a good way to dissolve the issue. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
[Steve] > It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or > that something was always around. Which do you think it is? Time is a sequence of changes & time began with the first change. It is a moot point whether the first change was from nothing to something or from something to something else. Either way there was a beginning & it was a finite time ago. Craig 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
BurpS !! party- Beer! 2010/9/17 ADRIE KINTZIGER > Besides DMB was a joke Dave. > > 2010/9/17 ADRIE KINTZIGER > > I think your analysis is right on, Steve. Leonard Mlodinow, a science >> journalist who knows Hawkin has published a best-selling book on his >> theories of reality called "The Grand Design." I heard him interviewed on >> Coast-to-Coast AM last night and thought you might like to review this >> summary of the discussion prepared by the show's host George Noory. >> >> "Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow discussed his current work with >> Hawking on the grand design of the universe and two central questions-- >> where does the universe come from, and why are the laws of nature what they >> are? Hawking's theories and the latest research in physics were used to >> answer those questions. While the conditions for life are just right on >> Earth, Mlodinow noted that we're looking backwards at the situation-- >> whatever conditions it took for us to get here, have already happened. >> >> "The notion of the multiverse (many universes each with their own physical >> laws) is a consequence of Hawking's theory of cosmology, said Mlodinow. >> These various universes arose from nothing, but we now understand from >> quantum theory that the state of nothingness is actually very unstable, and >> that "things are always coming and going from nothingness," he explained. >> Hawking's picture of the universe incorporates three theories: >> >> ". A 'no boundary' condition in which time becomes a dimension that looks >> like space. >> . M theory-- an extension of string theory dealing with forces like >> gravity. >> . Top Down Cosmology-- a new quantum approach that suggests the cosmos has >> many different simultaneous histories. >> >> "Mlodinow also reviewed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, >> and the search at the Large Hadron Collider for the theoretical Higgs boson >> particle. Interestingly, Hawking has predicted that the Higgs particle will >> not be found." >> >> For all his alleged brilliance, Hawkin apparently believes the universe >> (or "multiverse") was created from nothing, despite its 'Grand Design'. >> When Mlodinow was asked several times if he (and Hawkin) believed there was >> a Creator of the Grand Design, he dismissed the question as "one way of >> thinking," for the unsophisticated. His reaction was the same when asked if >> he thought life had any purpose. >> >> In short, the Hawkin-Mlodinow team is promoting the view that conscious >> life and the ordered physical universe are mere happenstances that arose >> from the chaos of nothingness. They are unwilling to even speculate on a >> principle to explain existential reality. For the life of me, I can't >> fathom a writer choosing the title "The Grand Design" if he doesn't >> acknowledge a Designer. (But perhaps the Pirsigians here view it >> differently.) >> >> Anyway, it provided a fascinating look into the scientific mindset. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> comment Adrie >> --- >> >> according to me , the theory of the multiverse originates from a >> completely unknown author/philosopher called WILLIAM JAMES >> AROUND 1895, but i repeat, the man is hardly known or noticed ever. >> >> From Wikipedia, the free idiotpedia >> >> The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical >> >> set of multiple possible universes (including the one unique >> >> universe we are pretty sure we consistently inhabit) that together >> >> comprise everything that physically exists: the entirety of space >> >> and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the >> >> physical laws and constants that govern them. The term was coined >> >> in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William >> >> James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are >> >> sometimes called parallel universes. >> >> The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe >> >> within it and the relationship between the various constituent >> >> universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis >> >> considered. Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, >> >> physics, astronomy, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and >> >> fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these >> >> contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative >> >> universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", >> >> "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", >> >> and "alternative timelines", among others. >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse >> >> >> >> TRY TO FIND WILLIAM JAMES... I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL BE SO >> DIFFICULT AT ALL >> THE SQUIRREL IS NOT HIDING AROUND A TREE THIS TIME. >> >> The Squirrel was not a hidden tip, it was all over the place at all times. >> >> >> >> Now allow me some remarks. >> >> >> the text you stole from the internet, originates from the hand of Kate Mc >> Alpine, and the 23 year old chicka works at cern(lhc) >> s
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Platt to Steve: Particles act they way that do at the quantum level because they prefer to act that way, just as life prefers to live and replicate and intellect prefers the subject/object division of experience, i.e., the world is moral order and values rule. Do you buy it? Andre: This is yet again a wonderful example of the reason why I am so reluctant to carry on a conversation with you Platt. You start off rather okay but then you sleeze in another one of your interpretations which are totally unsupported, or rather, rejected by Mr. Pirsig...the 'intellect prefers...'crap. Please go to your tea-party Platt. Goodbye. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Besides DMB was a joke Dave. 2010/9/17 ADRIE KINTZIGER > I think your analysis is right on, Steve. Leonard Mlodinow, a science > journalist who knows Hawkin has published a best-selling book on his > theories of reality called "The Grand Design." I heard him interviewed on > Coast-to-Coast AM last night and thought you might like to review this > summary of the discussion prepared by the show's host George Noory. > > "Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow discussed his current work with Hawking > on the grand design of the universe and two central questions-- where does > the universe come from, and why are the laws of nature what they are? > Hawking's theories and the latest research in physics were used to answer > those questions. While the conditions for life are just right on Earth, > Mlodinow noted that we're looking backwards at the situation-- whatever > conditions it took for us to get here, have already happened. > > "The notion of the multiverse (many universes each with their own physical > laws) is a consequence of Hawking's theory of cosmology, said Mlodinow. > These various universes arose from nothing, but we now understand from > quantum theory that the state of nothingness is actually very unstable, and > that "things are always coming and going from nothingness," he explained. > Hawking's picture of the universe incorporates three theories: > > ". A 'no boundary' condition in which time becomes a dimension that looks > like space. > . M theory-- an extension of string theory dealing with forces like > gravity. > . Top Down Cosmology-- a new quantum approach that suggests the cosmos has > many different simultaneous histories. > > "Mlodinow also reviewed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, > and the search at the Large Hadron Collider for the theoretical Higgs boson > particle. Interestingly, Hawking has predicted that the Higgs particle will > not be found." > > For all his alleged brilliance, Hawkin apparently believes the universe (or > "multiverse") was created from nothing, despite its 'Grand Design'. When > Mlodinow was asked several times if he (and Hawkin) believed there was a > Creator of the Grand Design, he dismissed the question as "one way of > thinking," for the unsophisticated. His reaction was the same when asked if > he thought life had any purpose. > > In short, the Hawkin-Mlodinow team is promoting the view that conscious > life and the ordered physical universe are mere happenstances that arose > from the chaos of nothingness. They are unwilling to even speculate on a > principle to explain existential reality. For the life of me, I can't > fathom a writer choosing the title "The Grand Design" if he doesn't > acknowledge a Designer. (But perhaps the Pirsigians here view it > differently.) > > Anyway, it provided a fascinating look into the scientific mindset. > > > > > > > comment Adrie > --- > > according to me , the theory of the multiverse originates from a > completely unknown author/philosopher called WILLIAM JAMES > AROUND 1895, but i repeat, the man is hardly known or noticed ever. > > From Wikipedia, the free idiotpedia > > The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical > > set of multiple possible universes (including the one unique > > universe we are pretty sure we consistently inhabit) that together > > comprise everything that physically exists: the entirety of space > > and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the > > physical laws and constants that govern them. The term was coined > > in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William > > James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are > > sometimes called parallel universes. > > The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe > > within it and the relationship between the various constituent > > universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis > > considered. Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, > > physics, astronomy, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and > > fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these > > contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative > > universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", > > "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", > > and "alternative timelines", among others. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse > > > > TRY TO FIND WILLIAM JAMES... I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL BE SO > DIFFICULT AT ALL > THE SQUIRREL IS NOT HIDING AROUND A TREE THIS TIME. > > The Squirrel was not a hidden tip, it was all over the place at all times. > > > > Now allow me some remarks. > > > the text you stole from the internet, originates from the hand of Kate Mc > Alpine, and the 23 year old chicka works at cern(lhc) > she has a habbit of stealing content on the internet, rephrasing it in her > own words and relaying it to the press , according to the > "FAKE IT UNTIL YOU MAKE IT" principle, yo
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Steve Steve: I don't think that Hawkings is saying that cause and effect get suspended at the beginning of the universe alone. The somethings coming from nothings happen all the time on the quantum level according to my understanding of his theoretical view. Not only the quantum level. Every MoQ level is an example of something coming from nothing. The inorganic level corresponds with the big bang. Other levels correspond with other similarly great events. Magnus 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
I think your analysis is right on, Steve. Leonard Mlodinow, a science journalist who knows Hawkin has published a best-selling book on his theories of reality called "The Grand Design." I heard him interviewed on Coast-to-Coast AM last night and thought you might like to review this summary of the discussion prepared by the show's host George Noory. "Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow discussed his current work with Hawking on the grand design of the universe and two central questions-- where does the universe come from, and why are the laws of nature what they are? Hawking's theories and the latest research in physics were used to answer those questions. While the conditions for life are just right on Earth, Mlodinow noted that we're looking backwards at the situation-- whatever conditions it took for us to get here, have already happened. "The notion of the multiverse (many universes each with their own physical laws) is a consequence of Hawking's theory of cosmology, said Mlodinow. These various universes arose from nothing, but we now understand from quantum theory that the state of nothingness is actually very unstable, and that "things are always coming and going from nothingness," he explained. Hawking's picture of the universe incorporates three theories: ". A 'no boundary' condition in which time becomes a dimension that looks like space. . M theory-- an extension of string theory dealing with forces like gravity. . Top Down Cosmology-- a new quantum approach that suggests the cosmos has many different simultaneous histories. "Mlodinow also reviewed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, and the search at the Large Hadron Collider for the theoretical Higgs boson particle. Interestingly, Hawking has predicted that the Higgs particle will not be found." For all his alleged brilliance, Hawkin apparently believes the universe (or "multiverse") was created from nothing, despite its 'Grand Design'. When Mlodinow was asked several times if he (and Hawkin) believed there was a Creator of the Grand Design, he dismissed the question as "one way of thinking," for the unsophisticated. His reaction was the same when asked if he thought life had any purpose. In short, the Hawkin-Mlodinow team is promoting the view that conscious life and the ordered physical universe are mere happenstances that arose from the chaos of nothingness. They are unwilling to even speculate on a principle to explain existential reality. For the life of me, I can't fathom a writer choosing the title "The Grand Design" if he doesn't acknowledge a Designer. (But perhaps the Pirsigians here view it differently.) Anyway, it provided a fascinating look into the scientific mindset. comment Adrie --- according to me , the theory of the multiverse originates from a completely unknown author/philosopher called WILLIAM JAMES AROUND 1895, but i repeat, the man is hardly known or noticed ever. >From Wikipedia, the free idiotpedia The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the one unique universe we are pretty sure we consistently inhabit) that together comprise everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes. The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", and "alternative timelines", among others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse TRY TO FIND WILLIAM JAMES... I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL BE SO DIFFICULT AT ALL THE SQUIRREL IS NOT HIDING AROUND A TREE THIS TIME. The Squirrel was not a hidden tip, it was all over the place at all times. Now allow me some remarks. the text you stole from the internet, originates from the hand of Kate Mc Alpine, and the 23 year old chicka works at cern(lhc) she has a habbit of stealing content on the internet, rephrasing it in her own words and relaying it to the press , according to the "FAKE IT UNTIL YOU MAKE IT" principle, you took it by cut copy and paste, rephrased it in some of your own distorted insights according to "THE FAKE IT UNTIL YOU MAKE IT PRINCIPLE", and thinking nobody will ever know, problem is of course , a lie nested within other lies. You should really check
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Steve, On 17 Sep 2010 at 9:07, Steven Peterson wrote: Hi Platt, Steve: > It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or > that something was always around. Which do you think it is? Platt: >...So we find ourselves in the land of paradox. > The only way out of this rational cul-de-sac that I know of is for one to > decide which underlying assumption of the many available has the highest > quality. For me, it's that something was always around. In other words, I buy > the scientist's assumption that for every effect there is a cause That at the > beginning of the universe cause and effect suddenly becomes inoperative to > Hawkins and some other cosmologists seems to me to be a grand cop out. Steve: I don't think that Hawkings is saying that cause and effect get suspended at the beginning of the universe alone. The somethings coming from nothings happen all the time on the quantum level according to my understanding of his theoretical view. [P] Yes, that's also my understanding. Quantum theory is "Oops" in spades. Particles arise and disappear seemingly without cause. But, mysteriously that changes at upper levels. There everything happens by natural causes -- or so seems to be science's assumption. Why the change from no cause to cause, from "Oops" to "Because?" That's what I'd like to know. Maybe Pirsig's answer is best. Particles act they way that do at the quantum level because they prefer to act that way, just as life prefers to live and replicate and intellect prefers the subject/object division of experience, i.e., the world is moral order and values rule. Do you buy it? Steve: As far as "the land of paradox," I don't see any answer to questions about the beginning of time as obviously more rational and others as obviously worth laughing at as "oops" theories. Believers often argue that the universe must have a beginning because othgerwise we would have an infinite regress of causes. I suspect that our every day conceptions of time don't work with thinking about time as having a beginning since things like beginnings, befores, and afters presuppose that time already exists. [P] Agree. But I think "reason" depends on assumptions like things have beginnings. For example, reason says things like: "Time cannot be created because it takes time to create" and "The present never changes but everything changes in the present." In other words, paradoxes are a result of reason's limits. Which is why we have an "Incompleteness Theorem" and an "Uncertainty Principle." On the other hand if you mean by "rational" whatever science says is true, then we're of different minds. So I ask, what do you mean by "rational?" 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Platt, Steve: > It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or > that something was always around. Which do you think it is? Platt: >...So we find ourselves in the land of paradox. > The only way out of this rational cul-de-sac that I know of is for one to > decide which underlying assumption of the many available has the highest > quality. For me, it's that something was always around. In other words, I buy > the scientist's assumption that for every effect there is a cause That at the > beginning of the universe cause and effect suddenly becomes inoperative to > Hawkins and some other cosmologists seems to me to be a grand cop out. Steve: I don't think that Hawkings is saying that cause and effect get suspended at the beginning of the universe alone. The somethings coming from nothings happen all the time on the quantum level according to my understanding of his theoretical view. As far as "the land of paradox," I don't see any answer to questions about the beginning of time as obviously more rational and others as obviously worth laughing at as "oops" theories. Believers often argue that the universe must have a beginning because othgerwise we would have an infinite regress of causes. I suspect that our every day conceptions of time don't work with thinking about time as having a beginning since things like beginnings, befores, and afters presuppose that time already exists. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:44 PM, wrote: > On 16 Sep 2010 at 17:18, Steven Peterson wrote: > > Hi Platt, > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM, wrote: > > Hi Ham, > > > > Yes, "Something from Nothing" is latest iteration of the "Oops Theory" of > how > > the universe came into being. It goes hand in hand with the terms > "spontaneous" > > and "emergence" so favored by science types when they have no idea why or > how > > something occurred. > > > It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or > that something was always around. Which do you think it is? > > Hi Steven, > > I suppose you can argue that nothing is something. But, that doesn't sit > well > with me because to have a concept of nothing you have to have something, > just > as the concept of a whole presupposes a larger whole, or the concept of one > presupposes the concept of many. So we find ourselves in the land of > paradox. > If concepts are real (something) and nothing is indusputably conceptual, then nothing is indisputiably something. Platt: The only way out of this rational cul-de-sac that I know of is for one to > decide which underlying assumption of the many available has the highest > quality. For me, it's that something was always around. In other words, I > buy > the scientist's assumption that for every effect there is a cause That at > the > beginning of the universe cause and effect suddenly becomes inoperative to > Hawkins and some other cosmologists seems to me to be a grand cop out. > > John: Yes, given a pick between cosmologies, what 'good" is a nihilistic one? > But I could be wrong. Maybe the technique Magnus uses to identify underling > assumptions will reveal that I am. :-) > Well, you'll get no argument from me, I agree completely. Idealistically yours, John 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
More empirical evidence that intellectual patterns are socially driven, thanks Adrie. On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:57 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > Hawking and Higgs don't match, there is a very big rivalry. > On several occasions Hawking was humiliated by Peter Higgs in interviews > etc.. > Since then Hawking tries to get even. > > 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Greetings, Ham, It's nice to have a simpatico interest. I too caught that on coast to coast. Eschewing the tube, I'm naturally hooked on radio... On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Ham Priday Steve: I suspect that he thinks scientific descriptions have > > some privileged status over other sorts of descriptions. ... >> > > Ham: > I think your analysis is right on, Steve. Leonard Mlodinow, a science > journalist who knows Hawkin has published a best-selling book on his > theories of reality called "The Grand Design." I heard him interviewed on > Coast-to-Coast AM last night and thought you might like to review this > summary of the discussion prepared by the show's host George Noory. > > "Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow discussed his current work with Hawking > on the grand design of the universe and two central questions-- where does > the universe come from, and why are the laws of nature what they are? > Hawking's theories and the latest research in physics were used to answer > those questions. While the conditions for life are just right on Earth, > Mlodinow noted that we're looking backwards at the situation-- whatever > conditions it took for us to get here, have already happened. > > John: And yet Hawking claims philosophy is dead? > "The notion of the multiverse (many universes each with their own physical > laws) is a consequence of Hawking's theory of cosmology, said Mlodinow. > These various universes arose from nothing, but we now understand from > quantum theory that the state of nothingness is actually very unstable, and > that "things are always coming and going from nothingness," he explained. > Hawking's picture of the universe incorporates three theories: > > ". A 'no boundary' condition in which time becomes a dimension that looks > like space. > . M theory-- an extension of string theory dealing with forces like > gravity. > . Top Down Cosmology-- a new quantum approach that suggests the cosmos has > many different simultaneous histories. > > "Mlodinow also reviewed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, > and the search at the Large Hadron Collider for the theoretical Higgs boson > particle. Interestingly, Hawking has predicted that the Higgs particle will > not be found." > > For all his alleged brilliance, Hawkin apparently believes the universe (or > "multiverse") was created from nothing, despite its 'Grand Design'. When > Mlodinow was asked several times if he (and Hawkin) believed there was a > Creator of the Grand Design, he dismissed the question as "one way of > thinking," for the unsophisticated. His reaction was the same when asked if > he thought life had any purpose. > > John: well, I say consider the source on that one. Ask somebody who's drinking wine and getting laid regular if life has any purpose. Not some gnat in a knot. Ham: > In short, the Hawkin-Mlodinow team is promoting the view that conscious > life and the ordered physical universe are mere happenstances that arose > from the chaos of nothingness. John: sigh. More moronists. The world is full of them. Ham: > They are unwilling to even speculate on a principle to explain existential > reality. For the life of me, I can't fathom a writer choosing the title > "The Grand Design" if he doesn't acknowledge a Designer. (But perhaps the > Pirsigians here view it differently.) > > John: I've always maintained that anybody who names a book "a brief history of time" and does so non-ironically, is an ass and a philosophical cretin. And I bet I could whip him in a game of one on one, as well. Ham: > Anyway, it provided a fascinating look into the scientific mindset. > > John: Yes. Sigh again. Good to hear from you, Ham. John 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
On 16 Sep 2010 at 17:18, Steven Peterson wrote: Hi Platt, On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM, wrote: > Hi Ham, > > Yes, "Something from Nothing" is latest iteration of the "Oops Theory" of how > the universe came into being. It goes hand in hand with the terms > "spontaneous" > and "emergence" so favored by science types when they have no idea why or how > something occurred. It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or that something was always around. Which do you think it is? Hi Steven, I suppose you can argue that nothing is something. But, that doesn't sit well with me because to have a concept of nothing you have to have something, just as the concept of a whole presupposes a larger whole, or the concept of one presupposes the concept of many. So we find ourselves in the land of paradox. The only way out of this rational cul-de-sac that I know of is for one to decide which underlying assumption of the many available has the highest quality. For me, it's that something was always around. In other words, I buy the scientist's assumption that for every effect there is a cause That at the beginning of the universe cause and effect suddenly becomes inoperative to Hawkins and some other cosmologists seems to me to be a grand cop out. But I could be wrong. Maybe the technique Magnus uses to identify underling assumptions will reveal that I am. :-) Platt 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Platt, On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM, wrote: > Hi Ham, > > Yes, "Something from Nothing" is latest iteration of the "Oops Theory" of how > the universe came into being. It goes hand in hand with the terms > "spontaneous" > and "emergence" so favored by science types when they have no idea why or how > something occurred. It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or that something was always around. Which do you think it is? 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
[Ham] > the Hawkin-Mlodinow team...are unwilling to even speculate on a principle > to explain existential reality. . But this is the only consistent view you can have, if you don't think "existential reality" can be explained. Craig 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Ham, Yes, "Something from Nothing" is latest iteration of the "Oops Theory" of how the universe came into being. It goes hand in hand with the terms "spontaneous" and "emergence" so favored by science types when they have no idea why or how something occurred. Not only are all such terms descriptive rather than explanatory, they reflect that arrogance of those who consider them themselves smarter than the rest of us. We're just supposed to accept what they say without question because, after all, they are scientists and they know best. Sorry, I'm not buying it, and am glad to see you don't either. More than that, I'm glad to see you still contributing to this site. We disagree on much, but your erudition has always been of the highest quality and a pleasure to behold. Warm regards, Platt . On 16 Sep 2010 at 14:13, Ham Priday wrote: On 15 Sep 2010, at 19:51, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi John, Horse, Marsha, > > I hesitate to conclude that Hawking is a moron since there is so much > evidence to the contrary. > > What I hope he means by "philosophy is dead" is that philosophy as > Plato's project of getting beyond appearances to get us in touch with > reality as it really is has run its course and outlived its > usefulness. If so, I think Pirsig and any pragmatist would agree. On > the other hand, what I suspect he does mean is that science has proven > itself to be the one true way of getting us in touch with reality as > it really is. I suspect that he thinks scientific descriptions have > some privileged status over other sorts of descriptions. ... I think your analysis is right on, Steve. Leonard Mlodinow, a science journalist who knows Hawkin has published a best-selling book on his theories of reality called "The Grand Design." I heard him interviewed on Coast-to-Coast AM last night and thought you might like to review this summary of the discussion prepared by the show's host George Noory. "Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow discussed his current work with Hawking on the grand design of the universe and two central questions-- where does the universe come from, and why are the laws of nature what they are? Hawking's theories and the latest research in physics were used to answer those questions. While the conditions for life are just right on Earth, Mlodinow noted that we're looking backwards at the situation-- whatever conditions it took for us to get here, have already happened. "The notion of the multiverse (many universes each with their own physical laws) is a consequence of Hawking's theory of cosmology, said Mlodinow. These various universes arose from nothing, but we now understand from quantum theory that the state of nothingness is actually very unstable, and that "things are always coming and going from nothingness," he explained. Hawking's picture of the universe incorporates three theories: ". A 'no boundary' condition in which time becomes a dimension that looks like space. . M theory-- an extension of string theory dealing with forces like gravity. . Top Down Cosmology-- a new quantum approach that suggests the cosmos has many different simultaneous histories. "Mlodinow also reviewed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, and the search at the Large Hadron Collider for the theoretical Higgs boson particle. Interestingly, Hawking has predicted that the Higgs particle will not be found." For all his alleged brilliance, Hawkin apparently believes the universe (or "multiverse") was created from nothing, despite its 'Grand Design'. When Mlodinow was asked several times if he (and Hawkin) believed there was a Creator of the Grand Design, he dismissed the question as "one way of thinking," for the unsophisticated. His reaction was the same when asked if he thought life had any purpose. In short, the Hawkin-Mlodinow team is promoting the view that conscious life and the ordered physical universe are mere happenstances that arose from the chaos of nothingness. They are unwilling to even speculate on a principle to explain existential reality. For the life of me, I can't fathom a writer choosing the title "The Grand Design" if he doesn't acknowledge a Designer. (But perhaps the Pirsigians here view it differently.) Anyway, it provided a fascinating look into the scientific mindset. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Quote Ham on quoting Hawking. "Mlodinow also reviewed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, and the search at the Large Hadron Collider for the theoretical Higgs boson particle. Interestingly, Hawking has predicted that the Higgs particle will not be found." Hawking and Higgs don't match, there is a very big rivalry. On several occasions Hawking was humiliated by Peter Higgs in interviews etc.. Since then Hawking tries to get even. The Higgs-model, and Hawking's prediction towards the possible or not discovery of the model is partially derived from this rivalry. But strangely enough, it is correct that it is not very likely that the mechanism of gravity will show itself in the Higgs field. The reason's for this , however, are residing in models outside this conflict.But this is very complicated to explain, it comes down to this. In the standardmodel all particle's are having a counteropponent, (supersymmetry),..proton/antiproton, quark/antiquark, etc , about for this moment 108 basic particle's. The upcoming problem for the Higgs boson, is that it shows up in the models as its own counteropponent at the same moment. And this is violating all normal predictions. Hawking is aware of this, and there is another reason, some other particle's are better gravity candidates. Another problem for the Higgs model , is that about 75% of science finds it more interesting to follow Hawking's leads on the black hole predictions, and are hoping to find the mechanism that can declare gravity, within the properties of black holes.Most of the availiable money goes to this project in the lhc. Greetzz, Adrie 2010/9/16 Ham Priday > > On 15 Sep 2010, at 19:51, Steven Peterson > wrote: > > Hi John, Horse, Marsha, >> >> I hesitate to conclude that Hawking is a moron since there is so much >> evidence to the contrary. >> >> What I hope he means by "philosophy is dead" is that philosophy as >> Plato's project of getting beyond appearances to get us in touch with >> reality as it really is has run its course and outlived its >> usefulness. If so, I think Pirsig and any pragmatist would agree. On >> the other hand, what I suspect he does mean is that science has proven >> itself to be the one true way of getting us in touch with reality as >> it really is. I suspect that he thinks scientific descriptions have >> some privileged status over other sorts of descriptions. ... >> > > I think your analysis is right on, Steve. Leonard Mlodinow, a science > journalist who knows Hawkin has published a best-selling book on his > theories of reality called "The Grand Design." I heard him interviewed on > Coast-to-Coast AM last night and thought you might like to review this > summary of the discussion prepared by the show's host George Noory. > > "Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow discussed his current work with Hawking > on the grand design of the universe and two central questions-- where does > the universe come from, and why are the laws of nature what they are? > Hawking's theories and the latest research in physics were used to answer > those questions. While the conditions for life are just right on Earth, > Mlodinow noted that we're looking backwards at the situation-- whatever > conditions it took for us to get here, have already happened. > > "The notion of the multiverse (many universes each with their own physical > laws) is a consequence of Hawking's theory of cosmology, said Mlodinow. > These various universes arose from nothing, but we now understand from > quantum theory that the state of nothingness is actually very unstable, and > that "things are always coming and going from nothingness," he explained. > Hawking's picture of the universe incorporates three theories: > > ". A 'no boundary' condition in which time becomes a dimension that looks > like space. > . M theory-- an extension of string theory dealing with forces like > gravity. > . Top Down Cosmology-- a new quantum approach that suggests the cosmos has > many different simultaneous histories. > > "Mlodinow also reviewed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, > and the search at the Large Hadron Collider for the theoretical Higgs boson > particle. Interestingly, Hawking has predicted that the Higgs particle will > not be found." > > For all his alleged brilliance, Hawkin apparently believes the universe (or > "multiverse") was created from nothing, despite its 'Grand Design'. When > Mlodinow was asked several times if he (and Hawkin) believed there was a > Creator of the Grand Design, he dismissed the question as "one way of > thinking," for the unsophisticated. His reaction was the same when asked if > he thought life had any purpose. > > In short, the Hawkin-Mlodinow team is promoting the view that conscious > life and the ordered physical universe are mere happenstances that arose > from the chaos of nothingness. They are unwilling to even speculate on a > principle to explain existential reality. For the life o
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
On 15 Sep 2010, at 19:51, Steven Peterson wrote: Hi John, Horse, Marsha, I hesitate to conclude that Hawking is a moron since there is so much evidence to the contrary. What I hope he means by "philosophy is dead" is that philosophy as Plato's project of getting beyond appearances to get us in touch with reality as it really is has run its course and outlived its usefulness. If so, I think Pirsig and any pragmatist would agree. On the other hand, what I suspect he does mean is that science has proven itself to be the one true way of getting us in touch with reality as it really is. I suspect that he thinks scientific descriptions have some privileged status over other sorts of descriptions. ... I think your analysis is right on, Steve. Leonard Mlodinow, a science journalist who knows Hawkin has published a best-selling book on his theories of reality called "The Grand Design." I heard him interviewed on Coast-to-Coast AM last night and thought you might like to review this summary of the discussion prepared by the show's host George Noory. "Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow discussed his current work with Hawking on the grand design of the universe and two central questions-- where does the universe come from, and why are the laws of nature what they are? Hawking's theories and the latest research in physics were used to answer those questions. While the conditions for life are just right on Earth, Mlodinow noted that we're looking backwards at the situation-- whatever conditions it took for us to get here, have already happened. "The notion of the multiverse (many universes each with their own physical laws) is a consequence of Hawking's theory of cosmology, said Mlodinow. These various universes arose from nothing, but we now understand from quantum theory that the state of nothingness is actually very unstable, and that "things are always coming and going from nothingness," he explained. Hawking's picture of the universe incorporates three theories: ". A 'no boundary' condition in which time becomes a dimension that looks like space. . M theory-- an extension of string theory dealing with forces like gravity. . Top Down Cosmology-- a new quantum approach that suggests the cosmos has many different simultaneous histories. "Mlodinow also reviewed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, and the search at the Large Hadron Collider for the theoretical Higgs boson particle. Interestingly, Hawking has predicted that the Higgs particle will not be found." For all his alleged brilliance, Hawkin apparently believes the universe (or "multiverse") was created from nothing, despite its 'Grand Design'. When Mlodinow was asked several times if he (and Hawkin) believed there was a Creator of the Grand Design, he dismissed the question as "one way of thinking," for the unsophisticated. His reaction was the same when asked if he thought life had any purpose. In short, the Hawkin-Mlodinow team is promoting the view that conscious life and the ordered physical universe are mere happenstances that arose from the chaos of nothingness. They are unwilling to even speculate on a principle to explain existential reality. For the life of me, I can't fathom a writer choosing the title "The Grand Design" if he doesn't acknowledge a Designer. (But perhaps the Pirsigians here view it differently.) Anyway, it provided a fascinating look into the scientific mindset. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
As i was reading this , Steve , the waterpart took my attention. quote Dan, "Water is just water" Hyperealism. quote Steve," The sentence "water is composed of one part oxygen to two parts hydrogen" is thought to get us closer to the essence of what water really is than the sentences "water is healthy" or "water is wet" or "water is life." Now a simplified model on top of it, i will enhance it a little bit to make my point. For a pinguin or a polar-bear , water is ice , solid as a rock, having and owning the properties of granite. his reality. For a fish, water is transparant, fluid, and his world to live in,...-outside of this observable reality, there is no other. For a chemical company, steam, overheated water is only vapor with the properties of a gas. this is an observable and valid reality. For a physicist, Plasma, superoverheated steam from millions of degrees hot is maximum diffusion of matter and energy. this is an observable reality. Subseqentally, for a Physicist water is not only oxygen and hydrogen, but also Deuterium in a part of 1/9000, called heavy water hidden among the hydrogen/oxygen molecules and atoms. This deuterium, in the water, delivers the propulsing fuel for hydrogen bombs, such as tested in the Bikini atol, or the tsar Bomba. this product is in your drinking water. The different appearances of matter, reality. all these realitys are true and possible to occur at the same time, all truths and realitys are observable , and not in conflict with the moq. they are congruent. Hawkings many worlds interpretation take's the same point of view derived from the formulating work of Hawking. "all previous history's are possible, and therefore , by association, all possible future's at the same time", (1)this is about as congruent with Pirsig's moq impression as it can get. different reality's are possible at the same time. Pirsig states, postulates that they must be observable realitys. Hawking is not conflicting this in his many worlds interpretation,therefor it became mainstream science. Hawking is also incredibly strong in avoiding to conflict Heisenbergs Copenhagen postulate. ! As is Pirsig,, and i do not agree on Pirsig's Bohr/hardliner interpretation of Copehagen .Heisenbergs minimal interpretation is closer to reality. Pirsig's message is flawlessly congruent with hawking's interpretations. So concluding, in review of your question about 'moron', Hawking is a moron with an iq that is totally of scale in the stanford binet test, and all others. And to quote Hawking on this matter,.people bragging about their iq's, are mostly idiots. this as an aside. (1) this is the part as where Hawking imported supersymmetry and quantum physiks into his model, but i left it out for obvious reasons. (the possible observable quantum-states allow all possible observable reality's, present , history, and future.) i can make it transparant if requested. So enough for today, these are only some impressions. Greetz, Adrie 2010/9/15 Steven Peterson > Hi John, Horse, Marsha, > > I hesitate to conclude that Hawking is a moron since there is so much > evidence to the contrary. > > What I hope he means by "philosophy is dead" is that philosophy as > Plato's project of getting beyond appearances to get us in touch with > reality as it really is has run its course and outlived its > usefulness. If so, I think Pirsig and any pragmatist would agree. On > the other hand, what I suspect he does mean is that science has proven > itself to be the one true way of getting us in touch with reality as > it really is. I suspect that he thinks scientific descriptions have > some privileged status over other sorts of descriptions. The sentence > "water is composed of one part oxygen to two parts hydrogen" is > thought to get us closer to the essence of what water really is than > the sentences "water is healthy" or "water is wet" or "water is life." > Someone who spends all his time thinking about theoretical physics may > start to think that a grand unifying theory in physics will be a > theory of everything. The fact that everything perhaps _can_ be given > a physical description will never mean that everything only ever > _should_ be thought of in physical terms. > > Best, > Steve > 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/md/archives.html > -- parser 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Steve, not sure about the Plato / appearances bit, but from "I suspect that he thinks that ..." onwards I totally agree. Ian Sent from my iPhone On 15 Sep 2010, at 19:51, Steven Peterson wrote: Hi John, Horse, Marsha, I hesitate to conclude that Hawking is a moron since there is so much evidence to the contrary. What I hope he means by "philosophy is dead" is that philosophy as Plato's project of getting beyond appearances to get us in touch with reality as it really is has run its course and outlived its usefulness. If so, I think Pirsig and any pragmatist would agree. On the other hand, what I suspect he does mean is that science has proven itself to be the one true way of getting us in touch with reality as it really is. I suspect that he thinks scientific descriptions have some privileged status over other sorts of descriptions. The sentence "water is composed of one part oxygen to two parts hydrogen" is thought to get us closer to the essence of what water really is than the sentences "water is healthy" or "water is wet" or "water is life." Someone who spends all his time thinking about theoretical physics may start to think that a grand unifying theory in physics will be a theory of everything. The fact that everything perhaps _can_ be given a physical description will never mean that everything only ever _should_ be thought of in physical terms. Best, Steve 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi , Horse, Personally i think that Hawking is pointing out towards the given Fact that "the philosophers" and Philosophy for these moments in time are hiding real well, times have changed for the last 30 years, and people of great importance like Francis F Coppola, Steven Spielberg, other great cineasts need to beg for money from the banks to get funded in the creative proces. Same goes for Authors , Pirsig(guggenheim) to stay alive and be creative. The marketingboys of these entity's are imported in the model at the same time.and they always have the right of the final cut. What Hawking is doeing is stirring some controverse's to get maximum media attention for launching his commercials. Dawkins uses the same formula, and others , it's a clausule embedded within the product. They act as fundraisers for science-budgettes, and they do not even bother with it. Not attached to this , but interwoven, Hawking is cutting edge, mainstream science and the complete scientifical world is holding his breath when he speaks or presentes a new model, like his interpretations of the many worlds possibility. On his work on Black holes , he is truly very near to the Nobelprize.But sadly it is true that lhc is limping behind. The possibility that it will be a Nobel-posthume eventually, is not unthinkable. The biggest controverse Hawking always is stirring, is the ruling out of the possibility of the presence of a creator in his models, sometimes he tunes back a little bit ,going full throttle at other moments. This is the main concern of the creationists, That Hawking will discover the always dynamical model of the universe, no place for a creator. He is literally saying, "what place for a creator, this will give us a halted universe, nothing to discover anymore." This is about the mainstream idea he is launching--, he has no intention what so ever to release the throttle, just to pleasure the creationists. He is very well aware of the fact that some are still denying fossils, science, evolution, or are calling evolution one of god's instruments. So this is the main cause of the controverse. Now in regard of the question he launches about where are the great Philosophers nowedays? My opinion?- where are they , since Pirsig?,i cannot show or produce them, they seem dissapeared, adopted by marketingstatistics. Been reading some GG Marguez, in regard of his Nobelprise long ago, as an attempt to find some hidden philosophy, i did not found it in his work, he is very dissapointing. I repeat , where are they? what are the developments since Pirsig?i do not think that Hawking is completely wrong. Your proposal, Horse , is better than Hawking's stampede, he should know better, trying to be complementary. There is however no need to be surprised when Hawking or Dawkins will chance course next week or at the moment of one of their new publications.This depends on the marketingmodels. The best option for Hawking is to stick at what he is good in, nl, black holes and the multiple worlds interpretation,the informationparadox.He is unbeatable at his field(s). As philosopher he does not exist. Adrie 2010/9/15 Horse > Hi Steve > > Perhaps scientists haven't kept up with philosophy as well as they could > have and thus have a poor understanding of current philosophical positions. > Dawkins has said similar things about philosophy as well if I remember > correctly. But then he's said some fairly odd things in general. > I think to a great extent those that practice science often see philosophy > in general and metaphysics in particular as a competing oppositional system > and so get very edgy and dismissive of it. Although in some cases I can > hardly blame them when the philosophy is poor. > I think the more enlightened practitioners of both science and philosophy > regard them as complementary and not oppositional. > In my opinion of course. > > Horse > > > On 15/09/2010 15:25, Steven Peterson wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> What did Hawking mean when he wrote "philosophy is dead"? >> >> >> > From new book: >> "We each exist but for a a short time, and in that time explore but a >> small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We >> wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns >> kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have >> always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world >> in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the >> nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need >> a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worry about these >> questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. >> >> Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is >> dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, >> particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch >> of discovery in our quest for knowledge. HTe purpose of
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi John, Horse, Marsha, I hesitate to conclude that Hawking is a moron since there is so much evidence to the contrary. What I hope he means by "philosophy is dead" is that philosophy as Plato's project of getting beyond appearances to get us in touch with reality as it really is has run its course and outlived its usefulness. If so, I think Pirsig and any pragmatist would agree. On the other hand, what I suspect he does mean is that science has proven itself to be the one true way of getting us in touch with reality as it really is. I suspect that he thinks scientific descriptions have some privileged status over other sorts of descriptions. The sentence "water is composed of one part oxygen to two parts hydrogen" is thought to get us closer to the essence of what water really is than the sentences "water is healthy" or "water is wet" or "water is life." Someone who spends all his time thinking about theoretical physics may start to think that a grand unifying theory in physics will be a theory of everything. The fact that everything perhaps _can_ be given a physical description will never mean that everything only ever _should_ be thought of in physical terms. Best, Steve 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Steve, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi All, > > What did Hawking mean when he wrote "philosophy is dead"? > > I've been ruminating that one since Marsha brought it up. I'm pretty sure he means that philosophy is "all in your head". And it sounds like his contention is that what is in our head, doesn't match what science shows us as "outside of ourselves." A foolish philosophical position that no deep thinker holds, but Hawking doesn't know that because his philosophy is dead. John 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi Steve Perhaps scientists haven't kept up with philosophy as well as they could have and thus have a poor understanding of current philosophical positions. Dawkins has said similar things about philosophy as well if I remember correctly. But then he's said some fairly odd things in general. I think to a great extent those that practice science often see philosophy in general and metaphysics in particular as a competing oppositional system and so get very edgy and dismissive of it. Although in some cases I can hardly blame them when the philosophy is poor. I think the more enlightened practitioners of both science and philosophy regard them as complementary and not oppositional. In my opinion of course. Horse On 15/09/2010 15:25, Steven Peterson wrote: Hi All, What did Hawking mean when he wrote "philosophy is dead"? > From new book: "We each exist but for a a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worry about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. HTe purpose of this book is to give the answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances. They lead us to a new picture of the universe and our place in it that is very different than the traditional one, and different even from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago. Still, the first sketches of the new concept can be traced back almost a century." 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/md/archives.html -- "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." — Frank Zappa 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/md/archives.html
[MD] Philosophy is dead
Hi All, What did Hawking mean when he wrote "philosophy is dead"? >From new book: "We each exist but for a a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worry about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. HTe purpose of this book is to give the answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances. They lead us to a new picture of the universe and our place in it that is very different than the traditional one, and different even from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago. Still, the first sketches of the new concept can be traced back almost a century." 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/md/archives.html
