From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 03:40:37 BST
Mark,
Scott asked dmb:
What is the empirical evidence that there is value at the inorganic
level? (I've been asking for this for several months, from you, Paul,
and Ant, and have yet to receive an answer. If the answer is that
subatomic elements "prefer" some states over others, I would ask how
do you know that that is "preferment" and not, say, chance?)
msh says:
I think your question is based on a mistaken premise, that the MOQ is
either right or wrong, not just more or less useful in relation to
other systems. Remember, to say the MOQ is right and SOM is wrong
lis like saying Cartesian coordinates are right and polar coordinates
are wrong, that Euclid was wrong and Riemann was right. Metaphysical
systems make assumptions about the world, and we make those
assumptions in order to make use of the systems.
Scott:
But what does "useful" have to do with empirical, in this context? What can
I do with a "preference" interpretation that I can't do with, say, a "hidden
variable" interpretation?
msh says:
When two H atoms are joined by O, we can say they bond, prefer one
another's company, or are simply in love. It doesn't matter what we
say, we still end up with a water molecule, the empirical evidence is
the same. Pirsig says "prefers" and that's fine with me, because I
find the MOQ more useful than SOM.
Scott:
Right, the empirical evidence is the same, but the interpretation -- which
is the metaphysics -- is different. If all the claim to be "empirical" means
is that it doesn't contradict the evidence, then what is the point of
calling one's metaphysics empirical? Obviously no one is going to present a
metaphysics that claims that H and O do not make up water molecules. There
is no contradiction of evidence, that I am aware of, in Whitehead's
metaphysics. It includes God (though one with pretty different
characteristics from the one taught in Sunday School). Is it empirical?
Scott to DMB:
Since the MOQ claims to be based solely on experience, I am asking
what experience leads to the choice of the preference interpretation?
msh says:
The experience of being able to field a better description of
reality.
Scott:
How is "reality" better described with a preference interpretation than with
the hidden variable interpretation? Both are saying something about what is
"really going on" at the subatomic level, but both have no way of showing
it. To be able to show it, I would think, is what we mean when we say our
claim is empirical.
Scott riddled DMB:
What is the empirical evidence that, all else being equal, the more
dynamic is better than the less dynamic? ... What is the evidence
to reply to a radical conservative who thinks that change is not a
good thing?
msh says:
Change is not always a good thing. Sometimes the radical
conservative is right, but usually for the wrong reasons. I'd
evaluate the proposed change, using the MOQ's moral hierarchy, and go
from there.
Scott:
I'm not arguing for or against the statement (in fact, I think I agree with
it, given the qualification). I'm just asking what makes the statement
empirical. Since it is the basis of the moral hierarchy, and since the MOQ
claims to be empirical, I'm asking what is the empirical evidence for making
the statement. As far as I can see, there is none. That doesn't make it
wrong.
- Scott
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 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 05:25:36 BST