From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 12:12:12 BST
Hi Johnny,
Sorry it's taken a while to come back to you on this.
: wim:
: : 1) You write: 'The inorganic level is shaped by the laws of physics. These
: : laws are a codification of the value choices made by atoms and molecules.'
: : I would write: 'The inorganic level can be described by the laws of
: physics.
: : These laws codify the values inherent in the patterned behavior of
: : elementary particles, atoms, molecules or whatever else we suppose to be
: the
: : constituent elements of physical reality.'
: : I would likewise rewrite your consequent descriptions of laws at the other
: : levels.
: sam:
: I agree with you that 'described by' is significantly better than 'shaped
: by'.
Johnny:
: Could I ask you two to delve deeper into this question? Some things it
: brings up in my mind:
:
: Now that the laws have been codified, do they not "shape" more than they
: describe?
Well, I think Pirsig's discussion of gravity in ZMM is relevant. I don't think that our descriptions
have a causative effect, that's why I prefer Wim's reformulation.
: At what point were the laws codified, was there more laxity in inorganic
: behavior previous to this point?
I would say no. I don't think inorganic behaviour is affected by our descriptions of it (although
the quantum physicists might object there!!)
: Does Wim reject the word "choice" in switching to "values inherent in the
: patterned behavior?
He'll have to answer that one!
: How much agency does Sam ascribe to a molecule in making a choice, could it
: choose something else? If not, is it a choice?
I like Pirsig's description of this as being a perception/response to value/Quality. I think this
description is scalable (as does Pirsig). Language of 'choice' may import some contentious
assumptions from the human field, which may not make things clearer.
: Could the laws of physics have been different? Did they have to wait for a
: molecule or an atom to come along and behave in arbitrary some way before
: they could exist and force all succeeding molecules and atoms to behave like
: the first ones did?
I don't know - I don't know enough about physics to say. But isn't there something called (I think)
the 'cosmological constant' which, if it had been changed in an infinitesimally small way, would
have precluded the development of the universe as we know it? I know that some physical theorists
have hypothesised that universes have evolved - we just happen to be in one that's suitable for life
as we understand it.
Sam
"Great though books may be, friends though they may be to us, they are no substitute for persons,
they are only means of contact with great persons, with men who had more than their own share of
humanity, men who were persons for the whole world and not for themselves alone." (Thomas Merton)
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 : Mon May 26 2003 - 12:18:02 BST