Dear colleagues,
I have been reading the past several posts with a good deal of interest. In
grappling with what is real in the physical sense, I find it helpful to
replace "real" with "probable". After all, science has always been based on
what probably will happen or probably has happened, but never on what always
happens. Additionally, it might be said that what really (read probably)
happens in the real world is always filtered by the observer and at what
level, he/she is observing. This is the reason that Newtonian physics could
explain some of the physical nature of the Universe at a certain level,
which later, it was discovered was insufficient in its approach at the
subatomic level. It doesn't mean that there is no absolute truth. It only
means that truth is not constant, nor is it so narrow as to represent only
one person's view of it. Truth may just be a society, after all.
Regards,
The Bard
----- Original Message -----
From: Valence <valence10@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: MD Pirsig Strikes Again
> Hey Rob,
>
> ROB
>
> Perhaps looking for consistency in anything and saying "there is no
absolute
> truth" in my opinion is ironical.
>
> RICK
> Sure... but the problem is that, "there is no absolute truth" is a
strawman.
> You've responded to a point no one's made.
>
> ROB
> Because what are we arguing over other than the truth in Platt's
statements.
>
> RICK
> The truth in Platt's statements is irrelevant to this argument. We are
> arguing over whether Platt's statements agree with Pirsig's statements.
>
> ROB
> Reality is real. That's what the scientist was trying to say in my
opinion.
>
> RICK
> If you'll look back you'll notice that the scientist said physics is
> 'objectively real'. Objectively real? That's about as SOM as anything
gets.
>
> ROB
> But how can you say that without making a statement about the nature of
> truth?
>
> RICK
> In MOQ speak, you would say 'physics is a high-quality Intellectual
> Pattern'. Pirsig would consider it a statement of 'truth' in the sense
that
> physics is logically consistent, 'economical' in explanation and agrees
with
> experience. But as he expressly tells us, the MOQ does NOT insist on a
> single exclusive truth. There might be other intellectual patterns that
> agree with experience even more so... or are even more economical.
>
> ROB
> The experience of the Laws of Physics are common to everybody. No matter
> your philosophy.
>
> RICK
> You're right in a sense... the EXPERIENCE is common to everybody. But the
> question is whether 'the laws of physics' are ABSOLUTELY (now and for all
> time) the best explanation of that experience. Einstein didn't think
so...
> He thought the best explanation was Relativity. It offers an entirely
> distinct explanation of the 'nature of the universe' than the one offered
by
> Newton. If I'm not mistaken, most Quantum theorists also disagree.
>
> ROB
> Interpreting them as the "laws" is philosophy, the objective nature of
them
> is philosophy.
>
> RICK
> Close... Interpreting them as 'laws' is philosophy, interpreting them as
> 'objective' is SOM philosophy.
>
> ROB
> There is something that is "the laws of physics" beyond the objective
human
> interpretation of them.
>
> RICK
> In the MOQ, beyond interpretation, there is only DQ. Any guesses about
the
> nature of DQ or what lies beyond our experience is just that.... guessing.
> And a guess contains an element of doubt.
>
> thanks for your comments Rob
> rick
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> 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 Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:51 BST