Hi Glenn,
Forgive the long delay. I had some Level 2 problems which
necessitated a brief hospital stay. But all is well now, thank God,
DQ, a good doctor and the world’s best medical system which the
Democratic party seems hell-bent on socializing, thereby
guaranteeing a reduction in quality.
To get to the nub of our continuing dialogue, you wrote:
GLENN:
Yes, I’m saying that only science has a shot at explaining reality
with any degree of surety. Common sense is good enough for a
lot of things, but it only takes you so far and the explanations are
shallow. But I’m also saying reality includes things science and
common sense can’t, or can’t yet, explain.
Well, one thing science can’t explain, and will never explain, is why
science is good. It’s at this juncture that you and I part company.
You’ve indicated a number of times that truth, goodness and
beauty (as well as art, music and morals) are as real as rocks,
bugs, and elephants. Yet, because these realities can’t be
measured and quantified, they are outside the purview (and
surety) of science.
I agree. But does this mean we have to concede to the proposition
that the only knowledge we can truly rely on (besides common
sense) is to be found by manipulating substances in a laboratory?
I don’t think so. We’ve seen how a few beginning axioms can
create a nonphysical mathematical reality that possesses
amazing explanatory power. Similarly, we see in the MOQ how a
few beginning assumptions can create a nonmaterial
philosophical reality of immense illumination.
Obviously, you disagree. The only assumptions you appear willing
to accept are those adopted by the scientific community where the
only reality we can be sure of depends on measurement of
physical data repeated over time in controlled experiments. My
reply is simply that your view, while certainly effective at the lower
levels of experience, narrows us to a single, confining focus in our
attempts to determine the real from the illusory.
That for me is unfortunate, for at the bottom of mathematics we
find Godel’s Theorem and at the bottom of physics we find
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, both of which cast
tremendous doubt on the “surety” of science. Einstein reflects this
doubt of science’s omnipotence in the following statement:
“To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting
itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which
our dull facilities can comprehend only in the most primitive
forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true
religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to
the ranks of the devoutly religious man.”
Note that Einstein says that the “highest wisdom” and the “most
radiant beauty” are manifestations of a existence that our dull
senses cannot see or explain but that we “know “is real. And what
are these manifestations? Particles? Atoms? Forces? Natural
laws? No. They are values.
What can science tell us about values? Nothing. What does Pirsig
tell us about values? Lots.
If as Einstein says values are manifestations of a reality beyond
the reach of science, then I for one will follow Pirsig wherever he
goes because he’s the only one who has set down a complete
metaphysical explanation of why what Einstein says is true.
GLENN:
Good science is our only hope for gaining meaningful
knowledge—knowledge we are reasonably sure is right. And I
stand firm on that.
What is most beautiful is what is most real. And I stand firm on
that.
GLENN:
The belief that the big bang was an accident is not a scientific
belief. There is no scientific evidence that suggests it was an
accident. There is no evidence to suggest any cause.
By definition uncaused manifestations are either accidents or
miracles. The confidence scientists have in the creative power of
chance is an article of faith, something they assert despite the
absence of any reasonable proof.
GLENN:
Certainly magnetic, gravitational and quantum fields are
mainstream concepts, but holographic and implicate fields I’ve
never heard of. What kind of literature are you finding these in? I’m
interested in learning how scientific they are.
David Bohm, a physicist, is the author of implicate field theory. You
can read more about him at www.shavano.org/html/bohm.html.
Karl Pribram, a neuropsychologist, is the author of the holographic
brain theory. Check www.intuition.org/txt/pribram.htm. Also check
amazon.com for their books.
I have the feeling, Glenn, that we’ve just about exhausted our
respective positions on the matters we’ve discussed over these
many weeks. To say I’ve enjoyed our dialogue would be an
understatement. I thank you for stimulating this old brain into more
than fleeting thoughts, even if those thoughts are ultimately shown
to be empty and useless.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
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 - 16:00:48 BST