From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 23 2005 - 19:01:21 BST
Hi Ian
See what you are saying now.Yes I agree
that theory should be abke to fit ordinary
experience unless of course it is simply
talking about stuff that cannot enter ordinary experience
except via instruments.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron@gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: MD Sam's Eudaimonia
> Hi David, as I said I think we agree on the view of "science".
>
> My last sentence was referring to other posts of mine on my blog on
> this subject. One of the recent examples is David Deutsch's "Fabric of
> Reality", where he points out that numerous very important "state of
> the art" scientific ideas still have explanatory gaps when taken in
> isolation, despite a good fit in a more holistic view. One consequence
> of which is that many scientists, who work daily with some aspect of
> (say) a many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, believe it
> enough to base their life's work on it, but do not use it as part of
> everyday common sense in "domestic" life.
>
> Ian
>
> On 8/21/05, David M <davidint@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hi Ian
>>
>> Just the last bit, I agree science has been slow
>> to rethink itself in the light of its own findings
>> but feel there is some light appearing in the last
>> few years.
>>
>> DM
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron@gmail.com>
>> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 4:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: MD Sam's Eudaimonia
>>
>>
>> > Hi David M & Sam,
>> >
>> > The block quote you are referring to is my words, not Sam's, and I'd
>> > be the first to own up to it not being a coherent case (yet), but you
>> > get the essential point.
>> >
>> > Glad you agree - sometimes I feel I'm ploughing a lonely furrow on MD.
>> >
>> > Which specific last bit didn't you get - the whole block generally or
>> > the final sentence in particular ? I'd like to enlighten if I can.
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> > On 8/19/05, David M <davidint@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> > Nature IS physics IS MoQ IS good quality science IS the best
>> >> > explanation of anything; There is nothing else. MoQ highlights (and
>> >> > almost solves) things missing from "current" (SOMist) physics and
>> >> > science. As a "science" physics is by definition always expanding
>> >> > and
>> >> > updating itself. Looking at the most philosophical of modern
>> >> > scientists, and the most scientific of modern philosophers, everyone
>> >> > seems to recognise the SAME explanatory gaps, and the proposals for
>> >> > plugging them look remarkably similar to me from the MoQ
>> >> > perspective.
>> >> > A perspective which no modern philosophers and scientists seem to
>> >> > have, despite the fact that physics learned almost a century ago
>> >> > that
>> >> > SOMist objectivity is for the birds. Look at my posts on scientists
>> >> > not adopting their own best explanations as everyday common sense -
>> >> > after Deutsch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Sam
>> >>
>> >> Not sure what your last bit is saying. There is a lot in the
>> >> philosophy
>> >> of
>> >> science that sounds close to MOQ at the moment such as John Dupre,
>> >> Roy Bhaskar, Prigogine, and Nicholas Maxwell. I do agree that science
>> >> and
>> >> phil of
>> >> science have been slow to see the implications of the death of SOM,
>> >> determinism, essentialism and reductionism. But I think the turn is
>> >> now
>> >> taking place.
>> >>
>> >> regards
>> >> David M
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 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 Aug 23 2005 - 21:52:17 BST