From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 14:55:22 BST
On 8 Apr 2005 at 20:40, Scott Roberts wrote:
Scott asked:
What is the empirical evidence that there is value at the inorganic
level? ... how do you know that that is "preferment" and not, say,
chance?
msh says:
<snip> 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:
Nothing, at the inorganic level. Remember, I'm not a MOQ purist, not
by a long shot, Without an explanation of how, and maybe why,
saying Quality creates subjects and objects is no different than
saying God does it, so I'm probably not the best candidate to run
with this torch. Anyway, for me, SOM works fine until evolution
arrives at living beings, especially human beings, those pesky
animals who meddle and cause misery for others.
So.... I guess I'd say I "prefer" the preference interpretation at
the inorganic level because it allows a more symmetrical metaphysics
overall. Better style, you know. Higher quality.
msh said:
When two H atoms are joined by O, we can say they bond, prefer one
another's company, or are simply in love. <snip> 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?
msh says:
Again, I see no point other than symmetry of thought, just another
preference. Empiricism is meaningless without sentient beings. If
your complaint is that empiricism has no meaning at the inorganic
level, except insofar as it interacts with living beings, then I
agree with you.
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?
msh says:
Again, it isn't, not at the inorganic level. Unless you want to
bring sentients into the picture, we're not gonna find much to
disagree about. Other than our preferences.
scott:
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.
msh:
We've gone full circle, I think. At the level of the elements, the
preference interpretaion is a descriptive choice, not an empirical
fact.
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.
msh says:
I'm not sure what statement you mean. The more
dynamic is better than the less dynamic? This statement isn't part
of the MOQ, as far as I know. This is just another way of saying
that change is always good, which is obviously false. I think that
DQ-inspired change away from established patterns is always good.
And this, I think, is empirically verifiable, right down to the
amoeba moving away from the drop of acid.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." 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 - 14:57:48 BST