[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[markhsmit]

[Mark]
Because the laws of thermodynamics seem to be violated,
the farthest one needs to look is at the model itself, and not
claim that this needs a metaphysical interpretation.

Sorry to butt in.

[Krimel]
The point, as you of all people ought surely to know, is that there is not
even the slightest hint that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated.
[Mark]
Yes Krimel, I know the arguments to include life into thermodynamics.  My point
is just this:  Physics at present is an incomplete science, it always will be.
To use the state of the art of physics to support a metaphysical argument
only suggests that such an argument will change in the same way,
perhaps drastically.  It doesn't seem right to use an everchanging
discipline to support one that is supposed to be final.




===============================================

[Krimel]
My question was prompted by a quote you posted earlier that included this: 

"A century and a half after the publication of Origin of Species,
evolutionary thinking has expanded beyond the field of biology to include
virtually all human-related subjects?anthropology, archeology, psychology,
economics, religion, morality, politics, culture, and art.?

And yet you claim all those disciplines would be better off embracing
teleology and an account the thermodynamics that Pirsig shares with the
Institute for Creation Research.



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/