From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 01:13:46 GMT
Paul,
I have that passage in Lila marked, with the words "preference" and "prefer"
underlined, and the comment "intentional" added.
(Lila P118 in my Bantam paperback)
Actually it is this link with new physics idea of "causality" that really
drew me to the sense of "value" in MoQ.
Value being a better concept than causation.
Usefulness being better than logic - if I were to stretch the metaphor.
(It's the "causality" platypus that Pirsig is covering here.)
It's unfortunate Pirsig chose the rather anthropomorphic / intentional
metaphor "prefer", but, as I said in a mail not 4 hours ago, it's all about
statistical tendencies - "god playing dice" etc.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:00 PM
Subject: RE: MD "Is there anything out there?"
> Hi Platt
>
> Platt said:
> My question is, how do you explain that mathematics, a creation of human
>
> intellect, is able to so accurately model those preferences? Is it
> simply
> a mystery, or is there rationale for the relationship between inorganic
> preferences and mathematical formulas? To me it appears to be a
> relationship of cosmic and human intelligence that I know you reject. So
>
> I'm asking for your alternative explanation.
>
> Paul:
> The mathematical formulae that have been selected for explanation of
> inorganic phenomena are selected and developed for that very purpose
> aren't they? Don't physicists keep trying until they can predict the
> results of an experiment with more and more precision i.e., with higher
> quality? As I understand it, there are always many competing formulae
> and theories for any given set of data. The best ones are kept. Is it
> really a mystery?
>
> I'll be honest though, I haven't given this that much thought and I
> would really need to read up on the history of science again to give you
> a better answer. As things stand, I dislike any explanation that
> requires a cosmic version of human intelligence because it must follow
> that e.g. rocks and plants sit around thinking to some degree. I see no
> evidence of this. However, saying that particles are a set of
> preferences is also questionable although as Pirsig says in LILA:
>
> "In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in
> terms of absolute certainty and that "cause" is the more appropriate
> word to describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed.
> Particles "prefer" to do what they do. An individual particle is not
> absolutely committed to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an
> absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of preferences.
> Therefore when you strike "cause" from the language arid substitute
> "value" you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with
> a meaningful one; you are using a term that is more appropriate to
> actual observation." [LILA p.130]
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 04:13:39 GMT