Re: MD religious content & necessity of necessity

From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 10:07:33 GMT

  • Next message: Jim Ledbury: "Re: MD cosmology (split from religious content)"

    Hi Steve, others

    Not sure about matter being "created". Self-generated, like life, with
    consequent 'laws' maybe.

    Maybe part of the problem for MoQ is that Pirsig uses one level (the
    physical level) to describe what might actually be two (or more)?
    That's fine as far as anthropology and talking about quality with regard
    to the intellect and society goes, but the platypi raise
    their heads when you talk about cosmology.

    First of, there is a general wonder in physics at the way the laws of
    physics are attuned to allowing life, by which I mean allowing a long
    lived universe (weak but pervasive gravitational force) with long lived
    stars (weak (um) 'weak' force in a very favourable ration to a much more
    powerful but confined 'strong' force - sorry I don't make the names :-)
    ), etc... In fact the balance of forces is very precise, what in MoQ
    might be called a sweet spot. This has been taken by a substantial
    number of physicists to be proof of a creator, others are less
    convinced. There have been various attempts to clear this up or explain
    this away, some by attempting to show the mathematical inevitability of
    the observed laws, some by various flavours of 'if the laws were
    different, we wouldn't be here to observe them' (known as the anthropic
    principle).

    Perhaps there are 2 levels at play here, (1) the basic subtrate level to
    do with the stuff of matter which manifests itself to us as the laws of
    physics, the expansion of the universe... and (2) a level which
    emphasises the quality of molecular combination which would put a
    constraint on level (1) below.

    Sorry, going off topic, but that IMHO is what seems to be indicated in
    terms of MoQ by current scientific cosmology. But I would rather avoid
    talking about the origin of the universe and the nature of matter in
    relationship to religious faith, as I will inevitably feel the need to
    put my oar in :-). I have no wish to obstruct a discussion on faith
    with tangential issues, but I will feel duty bound to do if it gets
    tangled up with matters to do with and, dare I say, miscomprehensions of
    physics.

    I think that physics supports MoQ btw, but that is a different debate.

    All the best,
    Jim
    (there's a physics degree in there somewhere in case you didn't guess ;-) )

    steve wrote:

    >to two cents; In my humble opinion, many of the attributes of matter point
    >to it having been created. most obviosly, the principle of thermodanamic
    >conservation. Simply put this states that you cannot get something for
    >nothing. if for example you want to move a book you must first overcome the
    >weight[mass] then any associated friction. Calories will be burned, you will
    >need to replace them. All will be precisely accounted for no more no less.
    >This holds for dust particles to stars. It is one of the most tested and
    >trusted laws of physics.-The universe stands as a huge violation of this
    >principle. A single atom would be a huge violation. Since matter has no
    >infinite properties it should not ever exist. Not a single particle.
    >Infinite nothing for ever and ever Amen. As this is not so it strongly
    >suggests a creater. The creater probably does not sit on a throne and
    >resemble Santa Clause. To pull off this trick the creater is probably
    >infinite.[exactly what he said he was when we were still on speaking
    >tearms].I use the tearm he for simplicity.I do not think it's possible for a
    >finite mind to grasp the infinite. Hence the problems getting a good hold on
    >quality. Steve P. -----
    >From: "Matt poot" <mattpoot@hotmail.com>
    >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:39 AM
    >Subject: Re: MD religious content & necessity of necessity
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>Hello,
    >>
    >>
    >>Platt:Just so we're on the same page, I'm using the Webster dictionary
    >>definition of faith as "firm belief in something for which there is no
    >>proof." My question boils down to: How can faith constitute proof?
    >>
    >>
    >>Me(I): I think that the debate over the existence of a god(s) to be
    >>pointless. There is not, and will never be any definite proof of gods
    >>existence. Atheists can argue all they want that God does not exist, yet
    >>there is no way they can prove this, since god is not a physical being,
    >>
    >>
    >and
    >
    >
    >>not detectable in any physical realm.
    >>
    >>Also, for those who say that god exists, there is no definite proof of
    >>
    >>
    >gods
    >
    >
    >>existence. If we were to say "What would the world be like, once we
    >>subtracted god??" Things would still operate , live, function, etc. in
    >>much the same way they do now.
    >>
    >>Hypothetically speaking, if we were to prove one day, that God does/n't
    >>exist, what would that change? Really.....it should not change a thing
    >>about how we live our day to day lives. To do something good, just to
    >>appease a god, isn't as good as doing something good, for the sake of
    >>
    >>
    >doing
    >
    >
    >>something good.
    >>
    >> ^
    >>My 2 cents. ---^
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>POOT
    >>
    >>_________________________________________________________________
    >>MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_TaglinesORG - http://www.moq.org
    >
    >
    >>
    >>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 : Wed Mar 24 2004 - 10:10:21 GMT