Hi Marco:
> I just wanted to point out that the role of chance (skill, fortune,
> blessing, luck, Manito, DQ) is not secondary within a serious scientific
> theory like the evolution theory is. Thus, that the theory is not in
> contradiction with the MOQ.
The MOQ sees purpose in the universe. Die-hard Darwinists don't see
any at all.
> The question is: is chance the "window" for a "purposeful DQ" to come in
> from time to time and lead evolution? IMO no. Not necessarily, I mean. And
> according to my Occam's razor, I cut off what's not necessary.
>
> IMO when DQ comes in through that window, simply offers us the possibility
> and the freedom to change for something else, possibly for something
> better. In other words, DQ makes room and *then* we fill it with our
> purposes.
How did DQ influence anything before "we" came into the picture? Are
quantum particles purposeful?
> That's my point. It is absurd to state that universe has no purpose. IMO it
> has infinite purposes, often competing. The overall movement toward the
> undefined better is not a purpose, it is simply natural.
I think the MOQ agrees with you. But scientists? Darwinians? Most are
adamant in stating the universe exhibits no purposes whatsoever. We're
only here by dumb luck.
Your position seems to be "It gets better accidentally on purpose."
Where have I gone wrong?
Platt
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:18 BST