Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:26:50 +0100
Lila Squad and
Jim the mostly lurker,
Welcome Jim!
See my comments below -
DEEeditors wrote:
>
> > By-the-way superluminality destroys SOM's cause and effect platypus
> in a
> > different manner than Pirsig's "prefers preconditions..."
>
> Hi LS--
>
> I'm one of those lurkers who never has time to participate...
>
> Regarding the above quote, written by Doug (I think): Can someone
> explain (or
> point me to a source to explain) how superluminality destroys the
> cause and
> effect (i.e. deterministic) worldview? Is it an absolute logical
> conclusion
> that superluminality (and, that's a new word for me, by the way) must
> destroy
> this view? Or, could it be just one more phenomenon that makes the
> universe
> even more complex than we had originally thought?
>
> --Jim
> Pittsburgh, PA
>
Jim,
Yeah, I wrote that. My mind told me not to go there, but I just could
not resist... 0~(:-)
I seldom find an opportunity to use the word 'absolute' in regard to any
of what we call the conceptually known. So the quick answer to your
question, "Is it an absolute logical conclusion that superluminality
(and, that's a new word for me, by the way) must destroy this view?" is
"No!"
When you use the word 'logical' do you mean mathematically abstract?
Classical physical science is about the study of 'objective' properties
of reality. Mathematics is about the interrelationships of abstract,
context-free patterns.
Assuming you want more than a "No!" answer, could we establish where you
are on the issue? Do you understand what Pirsig accomplished when he
used the phrase, "prefers precondition..." to deal with SOM's cause and
effect platypus? Do you see the connection twixt SOM's cause and effect
and its weak sister induction? Then do you see that induction and cause
and effect require history to predict?
If you answer, "Yes!" to each of those then I can just repeat some of
Herbert's words on superluminality.
If you want to just read about this, a provisional answer lies in a
composite of the following: Pirsig, Popper (Karl), Poincaré, Deutsch
(David), Quantum Science (most recently 'Quantum Reality,' by Nick
Herbert) and my own (as Bo says) 'fertile mind.'
This is not a test, just need to see where to start.
Mtty, Jim,
Doug Renselle.
-- The complementary view of truth is many truths which are contextual, and by being contextual they leave room for the good to rule. It is not objectivism, which has no place for the good, and it is not relativism, which has no place for truth.By Hugo Fjelsted Alroe in his email to The Lila Squad on 11 March 1998, 17:44 titled, "LS Re: Rambling on intellect and life."
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST