[MD] Metaphysics

[X Acto]

What do you consider to be Real? 



----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:45:04 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics


Hi Mark,

Science has represented patterns for good, but also patterns of great 
destruction.  Theism has represented patterns for good, but also patterns
of great destruction.  For me, they are both best understood as static 
patterns of value, and not anything Real.  Not Real!!!  

I think what is dangerous is not to understand the nature of
all static patterns of value.  There lies the freedom to choose.  imho 



Marsha 







On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:04 PM, markhsmit wrote:

> 
> Hi Marsha,
> 
> Yea, science is a useful tool, in the same way a hammer is.  When
> science suddenly becomes the hammer of God, I must point out
> that such a notion is dangerous.
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I'm finding the more some strut their scientific stuff, the more
> transparent their "stuff" becomes. It's very humorous. 
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:58 PM, markhsmit wrote:
> 
>> Marsha,
>>  
>> I see now. My tactic is more "how do you know something
>> is true if you only read it". Yes, science is a faith, which means
>> that if you do not question it, you are a true believer. While
>> there is nothing wrong with this if used in a kind and altruistic
>> way, it is dangerous when one tries to convert others.
>>  
>> Unquestioned belief in science allows for the manipulation
>> of the masses. This is something I am truly against since
>> I am for individualism. I believe Quality can best be expressed
>> through the individual, and not through an institution.
>>  
>> This is the difference that I see between ZAMM and Lila. ZAMM
>> is a story about a spiritual awakening, Lila is more about building
>> a church, (imo). The more structure one puts up, the lower the
>> Quality.
>>  
>> Mark
>>  
>>  
>> Mark,
>>  
>> No sweet Mark, I think, like you, that science too often is accepted
>> without question. I asked a question. I asked Krimel if Einstein's 
>> general theory of relativity was science. No trap --- no trap, no cat,
>> and no mouse. 
>>  
>>  
>> Marsha
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Jan 17, 2010, at 10:45 PM, markhsmit wrote:
>>  
>>> Marsha,
>>> Oh, so you set a trap, eh. Cat and mouse? Catch Krimel out. 
>>> I guess we all learn in our own way.
>>> Mark
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> No Mark, the subject was not the scientific method. The subject is deductive
>>> logic which Krimel said might have problems because of NonEuclidean geometry 
>>> such as Riemannian geometry, which Einstein used in the general theory of
>>> relativity. But he'd rather dance away with a Ouiji board. Fine. 
>>>  
>>> Marsha 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Jan 17, 2010, at 11:27 AM, markhsmit wrote:
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>> [Marsha]
>>>>> I think I remember that Einstein used Riemannian geometry in the general
>>>>> theory of relativity. 
>>>>> Is the general theory of relativy science? 
>>>>>  
>>>>> [Krimel]
>>>>> It is a work of theoretical physics.
>>>>  
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> I guess you are saying that theoretical physics, Einstein's general theory 
>>>> of relativity, is not science because it uses deductive logic which is not 
>>>> the basis of the scientific method. 
>>>>  
>>>> [Krimel]
>>>> Scientists employ any means they wish to construct a theory or a hypothesis.
>>>> They can use induction or deduction. They can see it in a dream or get it
>>>> from a Ouija board. But, the theory has to be testable, It needs to offer
>>>> some improvement in our understanding or our ability to make predictions.
>>>> That is, a new theory has to improve our ability to reduce uncertainty.
>>>> Einstein's theory offered predictions about certain observable events that
>>>> differed from Newton's theory.
>>>> [Mark]
>>>> Marsha,
>>>> What you seem to be asking is what is the scientific method. As Krimel suggests, one
>>>> of the results of the scientific method is predictability. In hindsight one could say
>>>> that if predictability results, a scientific method was used. This kind of explanation
>>>> is useful for illumination purposes. Another way to view it, is that the
>>>> scientific method is really just an elaborate extension of what we all do every day.
>>>> When you put your hand in the shower to see if it is warm enough, that is the
>>>> scientific method. The science is predicting that at a certain interval the water will
>>>> become warm enough to get in. To become more scientific about it, you would
>>>> time the interval that it takes to get warm with a watch. If you pay attention, then
>>>> you may notice that it takes longer if it is cold outside. So, you have to introduce
>>>> a new variable, that is the temperature outside. Also the rate of warming depends
>>>> on how fast the water is flowing. As the detail of these observations grow, the
>>>> predictability gets better. This is no different from other empirical studies, they
>>>> just get more and more complicated. Measurement, prediction, measurement
>>>> prediction, introduction of new variable, prediction, measurement, test for accuracy.
>>>>  
>>>> Those that are good at this, compile many of these variables in their heads without
>>>> knowing it and can take jumps. They can amalgamate seemingly unrelated observations
>>>> and bring them into the equation. These genius leaps mark a good scientist, and
>>>> are similar to genius leaps in art, sports, and, yes, even religion. Einstein was
>>>> able to do this with general relativity. However to do so he had to go against
>>>> conventional thinking. This is also the mark of a creative scientist, which
>>>> are periodically needed to bridge seemingly wrong data. Many of Einstein's
>>>> predictions took years to prove afterwards. He based much of his
>>>> science on math, which has a remarkable property of predicting what
>>>> we observe. The trick is trying to understand what the equations mean
>>>> in the real world, and whether they are useful. An infinite number of
>>>> equations can be formulated, only a few are useful. An intuitive
>>>> grasp of the right choice is needed as it gets more complicated.
>>>>  
>>>> So, there is nothing mysterious about the scientific method, you use
>>>> it all the time.
>>>>  
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mark
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>  
>>>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>>>  
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>>  
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>  
>>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>  
>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>  
>>  
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
  
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...    







Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/