Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 20:32:48 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil"

    Hi Ham

    I think the way to understand DQ is
    to imagine Many Possible Worlds
    so that all open points that the world could bifurcate
    into 2 worlds. Imagine the vast number of worlds!
    But I do not see the need for many worlds,
    the vast number of worlds that are negated by every
    open point going in one particuLar direction explains
    the difference between the pleroma of DQ and the
    finiteness of a world full of SQ. & what a responsibility!

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:21 AM
    Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

    >
    > From: Ham Priday
    > To: David Morey, Wednesday, August 18
    > Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
    >
    >
    > Hi, David.
    > You've modified one of Mark's 4 MOQ premises by defining DQ as follows:
    >
    > > DQ contains all possibilities
    >
    > You've suggested that God is "the source of all possibility". Chris
    > Phoenix also refers to this idea in his most recent posting arguing for
    > non-empiricist definition of DQ:
    >
    > > DQ is the creation of yet-to-be-filled evolutionary niches.
    Possibilities
    >
    > Other philosophers have postulated a teleology of "infinite possibility"
    > that includes either multiple universes or multi-dimensional "existences"
    of
    > the individual that occur simultaneously but with results that depend on
    the
    > decisions made for a specific existence. Do you subscribe to such a
    theory?
    > (I personally don't see them as necessary for a metaphysical ontology, but
    > am interested in why philosophers continue to posit this concept; e.g.,
    "all
    > possible worlds".)
    >
    > I can understand the future as a possibility of choices (human and/or
    > natural) whose reality will be known at a later time. But are you and
    Chris
    > implying that there is more than one empirical reality? Please explain
    what
    > you mean by "possibilities" in this context, and whether MOQ defines a
    > theory of infinite possibility, that is, one that holds for all possible
    > worlds.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Ham
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 19 2004 - 21:09:12 BST