In a message dated 4/20/02 9:30:23 AM GMT Daylight Time,
ehallmark@macalester.edu writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Visulization of MoQ and the single electron theory
Date: 4/20/02 9:30:23 AM GMT Daylight Time
From: ehallmark@macalester.edu
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Squonk:
> Ironically there may become a time when there are more theories
> explaining electrons than there are, errrrr, electrons in the universe?
elliot:
Regardless, the quality of it srtikes you or it does not. for me it does,
and as pirsig admits, science is a purely aesthtic experience. I accept it
as only such. dont disregard science as irrelevant just because it isnt
based on fact, neither is any other philosophical basis.
>>
Hi Elliot,
I was trying to introduce i light tone into a somewhat heavy area?
My point is that, as you suggest, if there is one fundamental particle, so to
speak, and if it is weaving complex patterns, then one of the complex
patterns being woven by the single fundamental particle is the notion that
theories regarding the total number of fundamental particles in the universe
may actually exceed the number of fundamental particles themselves?
Thus:
1. If there is only one particle in the universe why do we have at least two
theories explaining fundamental particles: a. There is one. and b. There are
more than one.
2. One fundamental particle can produce possibly infinite layers of
complexity.
I find it ironic that science can use truth as a basis for legitimacy, (truth
implying one correct view of reality or aspects of it) and yet identify this
truth from an infinite number of theories.
I feel Pirsig suggests the same thing in ZMM?
But all this has consequences for your above position, which i find
incoherent and self contradictory:
Regardless, the quality of it srtikes you or it does not. for me it does,
and as pirsig admits, science is a purely aesthtic experience.
I feel you are suggesting here that high quality theories are beautiful and
best?
And if so, i would agree.
I accept it
as only such. dont disregard science as irrelevant just because it isnt
based on fact, neither is any other philosophical basis.
YOU are disregarding science if you do not accept that it IS based upon fact.
Scientific knowledge is factual; even probability has a degree of expectation
involved and expectation is based upon regulated experience.
The single electron theory is not an established fact.
Quality has more empirical evidence going for it that the single electron
theory i feel.
If there is a single electron, then we may postulate its behaviour to be
dictated by quality?
We may also postulate that its behaviour, although fundamentally dictated by
quality is mediated via a little red pixy called Charley, who lives in a
delightful old cottage beyond the fragrant flower meadows of Aventtakloo,
where a shimmering rainbow meets the glittering shores of Time immortal.
Philosophy deals with wisdom not threadbare knowledge.
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:02:11 BST