From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 04:07:02 BST
A reply in two parts
To Platt / Matt, then
To Erin / Scott / Ham ...
Firstly, Platt, your subjects are the "pointless debate" to which I
was referring. Matt's succint response is all that need be said. When
you ask "What's your point ?" I believe Matt's point (as was mine) was
precisely to point out that this line of debate is pointless. The
points you make say nothing about their subjects, but probably
something about you. No logical argument is going to find any causal
explanations "why" for the outcomes of a whole human life - Einstein,
FDR or Darwin. Life's too complicated. Get it ?
Secondly, the meat of the matter. Erin / Scott / Ham, if you're game,
I think we have something to discuss. Scott, you made a lot of points
in your long response, I can't address them all at once (but we may
get there, eventually) ... so I'll cherry-pick my key issues ...
Erin, the "two realms" was not something I wanted to introduce. I was
simply referring to the fact that Scott was (seemed to be) dividing
the real world into areas where science was "valid" and areas where
religion / aesthetics et al were applicable, and by implication,
science not.
Scott, I don't know what scientism is.
I'm a "physicalist" I think. (What would once have been characterised
as a "materialist" in older times before new-physics proved to be so
awesome - Platt - there's a lot more to physics than material /
matter.)
The whole world is "the real world".
Physics (by axiomatic definition of the word) describes the real
world. All of it.
Anywhere where physics does not currently have accepted explanations,
are simply "gaps in knowledge".
Pause for breath.
Is Ian completely mad ?
The difference between my "faith" in physics and a religious "faith"
in a divine (causal) being / intelligence, lies in the nature of
explanation it provides. Religion provides none, except where it
disingenuously invokes primitive or mis-placed "scientific" causal
evidence to support its arguments.
(Which isn't to say religion doesn't have a place in the world - but
that's another story.)
Despite being a "physicalist", I am a spiritual person. Zen / MoQ are
part of the real world; whatever it is we use the "spirit" metaphor
for is also part of the real world.. That's why I'm here. For example,
I do in fact believe that intelligence and consciousness beyond the
confines of individual brains (or minds) will turn out to be real -
explainable by physics. I do not believe space-time is a "product" of
our consciousness - though all the metaphors we use clearly are.
Consciousness is just as much a part of physics as space and time.
(See definition of physics)
More specifically Scott, you're right, doubt is part of religion too.
As I say, the difference is in how physics EXPLAINS the areas of
uncertainty, and the "known" areas up to such wooly boundaries - the
reasons for the uncertainty itself.
So, no I do not recognise any limits to science (physics) whatsoever.
(Good science, high-quality science that is, not just any old
science). But I do not see that belief as "dogmatic" either. It's a
matter of choosing what to believe based on the "Quality" of the
explanation. (Of course having a good explanation of the physics, does
not mean science is necessarily the most useful model for making
decisions and causal predictions in the real world - there we need to
understand the levels in play - in the MoQ sense if we like.)
Before leaping back up to some complex political / aesthetic levels of
examples, to question what I believe, can we stick down in these weeds
for a bit :-) and build from there. Re-introduce your questions one at
a time Scott - if I'm not satisfying you.
OK - a test.
Q. What is Ian's main point ?
Regards
Ian
PS
A. Explanation. What constitutes a quality explanation.
On 4/20/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Platt said:
> > Fortunately, there are some scientists who, awed by the complexity and
> > orderliness of the world, as well as its beauty, plausibly surmise that a
> > vast intelligence underlies existence. Einstein, for one.
> >
> > Matt:
> > Yeah, but Einstein also got a divorce and married his cousin. Is that
> > supposed to say something about the institution of marriage and incest?
>
> Darwin and FDR also married cousins. Does that say something about
> Darwinian theory of evolution and the political acumen of FDR? In other
> words, what's your point?
>
> Platt
>
>
> 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 : Wed Apr 20 2005 - 04:11:41 BST