Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 05:51:17 +0100
Magnus,
>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.
No I'm not. A very odd conclusion. You are reducing the author to the
argument. I am only too aware of the underlying assumtions of my beliefs but
as I considered this to be a forum for argument rather than a personal ad I
prefer to let the argument speak.
>What? Is quantum mechanics a philosophy? Please Struan.
Are you joking here? Of course it is a philosophy. All investigation into
the fundamental assumptions that govern our understandings is philosophy and
if that doesn't include quantum mechanics then I don't know what does. How
strange.
>> But also;
>> Existentialism and logical positivism.
>
>Make up your mind.
>
Even more strange. How can I make up my mind, they are additional too each
other. When you are in a supermarket and your wife says, "we need bread,
milk and coffee," do you say, "make up your mind." Hmmm.
>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.
I have never said that it does mean bad. I simply point out that if you are
going to be 'not rational' then it is bizarre to try and rationalise your
irrationality. There is no value judgment here whatsoever. I love being
irrational, but I obviously can't rationalise it. The whole concept of even
attempting to do so is absurd.
>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.
>
Yes I can see the problem if that is how you view rationality. I would
suspect that to most people rational means 'based upon reason'. If we find
that current theories are not based upon reason because we find new evidence
that refutes them, then we reject them and formulate a new theory which
conforms better to reason and so becomes more probable. In this way any good
new theory is totally reasonable and entirely rational.
Struan
-- post message - mailto:lilasqdÉhkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:dianaÉasiantravel.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