From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 18:06:47 BST
From Ham to Chris, Thursday, Aug. 19
Hi, Chris, and thank's for answering my question to David concerning
multiple universe systems.
A few postings ago, you wrote ...
> DQ is exactly the creation of new niches.
>
> Why can't MOQ see this? Because a new niche is undetectable until it's
> filled, and according to empiricism, it doesn't exist until it's
> detectable. Once it's filled (by something evolving to fill it), then
> you observe the static pattern and by implication the niche. But the
> moment of creation of the niche was unobservable.
> DQ is the creation of yet-to-be-filled evolutionary niches.
Possibilities.
> Empiricism, I think, has trouble dealing with possibility.
This is certainly true, and your proposition is significant to my own thesis
and very well developed.
Now that I know that you and David are not proposing a theory of "multiple
universes", let's focus on "possibility" as it relates to future events. In
your last note to me you said: "Since a niche can't
be detected until it's filled, there's no way of knowing which niches
exist." But can a niche be said to exist prior to its being experienced as
reality? In other words does "potentiality" infer existence? This is the
problem I'm having with your proposition, and I suspect that it may also
have exposed some ambiguity in the MOQ.
In my Philosophy of Essence, I place "Essence" beyond the realm of empirical
reality and maintain that it is the a priori Source rather than an
"existent". From a logical perspective, this avoids having to deal with
conflicting or opposing factors that apply to a dynamic system (DQ?). I'm
quite aware that my thesis is regarded as "supernatural" by the MOQ
participants for this reason, but I don't think it violates Pirsig's central
idea that Quality (or Value) transcends the duality of empirical reality
(SOM) providing an esthetic link between man and ultimate reality. While I
have not fully grasped the teleological aspects of your "possibilities"
concept, and its implications relative to individual Freedom, I think you
may be on to something.
Among other things, I would like to see how you explain Free Will in the
context of cause-and-effect determinism. (You might be interested in seeing
how I've handled this in the Freedom section of my own thesis at
www.essentialism.net. No one has raised questions about the concept
outlined there, which probably means they haven't read it or don't consider
it relevant to MOQ). I'd be very interested in your
thoughts on this, Chris.
Essentially yours,
Ham
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 19 2004 - 18:24:35 BST