LS Re: The Lila Squad


Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:46:28 +0100


Hi Struan

Struan Hellier wrote:
>
> No they are not contradictory in the sense that I am not contradicting
> myself. I
> am pointing out the contradiction not indulging in it. It is not my
> contradiction if the MoQ has nothing to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is
> the mask, emotivism the face and all I have done is point this out.
> Equally, I am not judging one metaphysics through the eyes of another, I am
> (in this instance) judging it through the eyes of an elimination of
> metaphysics so your objection is invalid.

So, you're one of those guys that think that it's possible to eliminate
metaphysics? I'm not. I think that either you put your cards on the table
and state a metaphysics, or you don't but presumes one anyway.
The only difference is that we're aware of the MoQ, you're not aware of
the metaphysics you're using. Platt said the other week that philosophy
is the search for underlying assumptions. In your case, I guess you'd
find SOM.

> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> xxxxxxxxx
> Further on in your essay you argue that "modern scientific philosophy" have
> abandoned dualist metaphysics and determinism. So, what is this "modern
> scientific philosophy"? Does it explain modern physical observations
> better than the MoQ?
> xxxxxxxxxx
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> The simple answer to the first part of the question is quantum mechanics and
> the second, yes.

What? Is quantum mechanics a philosophy? Please Struan.

> But also;
> Existentialism and logical positivism.

Make up your mind.

This was for Andy, I hope you don't mind.
> The first sentence sums it up. This is not a rational position. It is
> irrational and nonsensical. I seek a rational argument and you can not give
> it. We are (at first sight) on two entirely different wavelengths. Yours
> irrational, mine rational (by your own admission).

You're right about the wavelength difference. The rationality part requires
some explanation though. As Andy put it to Platt yesterday:

"Thank you, Platt, for helping us escape from the chains of rationality."

We think that rationality has its limits, to be "not rational" doesn't
always mean irrational as in bad. If everyone were being rational all
the time, nothing really new would ever happen, we'd be a world of
totally predictable robots.

And exactly how is quantum mechanics rational? Nobody has a rational
explanation for it. Being rational means (to me) "to conform to currently
accepted theories". We need to expand our theories to make quantum
mechanics rational, and expanding a theory is a non rational step.
The MoQ makes room for this.

        Magnus

-- 
"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
				N. Peart - Rush

--
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 - 16:42:57 CEST