Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:16:11 +0100
Ken,
Gladly. The uncertainty principle is also known as the indeterminacy
principle and so there you have it.
Although I realise that in an 'a priori' sense this does not obviate
determinism, to all rational purposes of mankind it does, if we are to be
reasonable about it. (if you will forgive the tautology) I should say again
that I have nothing against being unreasonable and indeed enjoy it on many
an occasion.
I've just read your reply to Horse and so will pre-empt your repetition of
it to me and attempt an answer now.
>--------------------------------
>On the Determinism question. In my mind the quantum theory had nothing to
>do with Determinism. It operated at the quantum level upon which the
>universe is constructed. As Horse (Stud) said, we can't have a predictive
>system sitting on top of a purely random system. I think we just need more
>information.
----------------------------------
I see no reason why we can't have a predictive system sitting on top of a
random system. If evolution is the replacement of disorder with order then
it seems inevitable that the former will replace the latter. A very crude
example would be two shipwreck survivors swimming randomly about in the
ocean, one with a raft, the other with water. They happen to meet and
combine their possessions with the result that both survive longer than
there less fortunate shipmates. Very crude yes, but a demonstration of how
order can result from disorder and also of how it can prevail.
------------------------------------
>In my view the universe bagan in a purely Deterministic way which was
>later modified by the theory of Deterministic Disorder (Chaos) resulting in
>a universe which is guided by Dynamic Quality (Evolution) in which the
>force for greater information content (the operation of evolution) resulted
>in a continually increasing level of "betterness" (Morality, Value?). In
>this view Dynamic Quality has been operating since the beginning (Kevin).
>In my opinion the Universe is a moral order which is not deterministic
>except that there is a pressure for continually increasing morality or
>value which is the result of random latchings of value which results from
>the initial conditions set by the Big Bang.
---------------------------------------
This strikes me as pure conjecture. Do you have any evidence for this
whatsoever? Also, you have described here how chaos came out of pure
determinism. Does this not strike you as just as odd as a predictive system
coming out of chaos? You reject one in favour of the other, but if you
accept that one is conceptually possible then you surely must accept the
other is too.
I should point out before I make the following definition of emotivism,
that, summed up in such a short space, it is relatively straight forward to
pick holes in it. For a more comprehensive thesis I urge those interested to
look at; Warnock G - Contemporary Moral Philosophy MacMillan 1967 or Ayer
A.J - Language Truth and Logic 1946.
I should also point out that this is not necessarily my position.
Anyway, Emotivism came from empiricism which, as I'm sure you are aware,
divided all meaning into two categories. Logic/analytic (a priori), that
which is true by definition, i.e. an unmarried man is a bachelor. The second
category is empirical (a posteriori) knowledge which is the field of
scientific endeavour and includes everything that comes to us via our
senses. The central thesis of Ayer and the Emotivists is that ethics does
not fall into either category of meaning so we cannot make sense of it. When
people use ethical language they are doing no more than conveying emotion.
As I say, this is what I believe adherents to the MoQ are doing. Pirsig
decides on an emotional level that the Northern States were right to go to
war then seeks to justify this using the MoQ. Others on this forum decide on
emotional grounds that Ghandi was better than Hitler and then proceed to
justify this position using the MoQ. Both fail purely because the MoQ cannot
supply a rational basis for their emotions.
Again I repeat, as some think I casting negativity over them by saying the
above; There is nothing necessarily wrong with relying on emotions. They are
just as valid as rationality, but to take an emotive standpoint and justify
it rationally is simply futile. The rationality, because of what it is, will
fail.
The MoQ may be valid, but it is not and can never be rational.
Struan
-----Original Message-----
From: clark <clarkÉnetsites.net>
To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqdÉmail.hkg.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 03:51
Subject: LS Re: RE The Lila Squad.
>Re: message of 3/22/98 and your essay.
>
>Struan,
> Perhaps you would explain to me why you consider determinism to be a
>false supposition. I think it is your reason for believing this that has
>caused these misunderstandings.
> Also, my forty year old Random House unabridged dictionary does not
>define Emotivism and I am not sure what it is. Could you give me a brief
>definition. Ken Clark
>
>
>
>--
>post message - mailto:lilasqdÉhkg.com
>unsubscribe/queries - mailto:dianaÉasiantravel.com
>homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
>
-- 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