[MD] Theism and literalism

[David M]

DMB

How does SQ fit into this model of subatomic behaviour
that you are setting out? And how does preference relate
to DQ and SQ?

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Theism and literalism


>
> Scott and all MOQers:
>
> dmb had said to Scott:
> ...All you've done is nakedly deny that this lab data counts as empirical
> evidence for that conclusion. Why does it not count? Why does the
> "preference" model not work better than the "causal law" model? Wasn't my
> main point centered on the inadequacy of that model, AS IT IS REVEALED BY
> THAT DATA? Yes.
>
> Scott replied:
> I agree that the data shows that mechanical, spatiotemporal determinism is 
> a
> bad model. But there isn't any data shows that 'preference' is a good 
> model.
> These aren't the only two possibilities.
>
> dmb now says:
> Who said there are only two possibilities? Oh yea, I remember now. It was 
> Mr
> Phony McStrawman. He's such a fool. We can easily knock his argument over
> with a single, gentle push.
>
> dmb had said:
> I don't think the MOQ is making any claims about what electrons are 
> "really"
> doing. The preference model is simply designed to describe the "behaviour"
> of subatomic particles as they are revealed in scientific experiments.
>
> Scott replied:
> These two sentences contradict each other. The "preference" model is an
> addition to the behavior revealed in experiment. That sure looks like a
> claim about what they are "really" doing to me. As I said, the only way to
> keep within the empirical is to say nothing.
>
> dmb now says:
> I think you are adding some kind of essentialist claim to this preference
> model, one that does not belong in the MOQ. As I keep pointing out, this 
> is
> not a claim about how electrons think or that electrons have some kind of
> subjective consciousness with which to make deliberate choices. The
> preferences model is simply a coherent and consistant way to explain the 
> way
> subatomic particles, its just one way to make sense of the data. I mean, 
> you
> have to keep in mind the MOQ's rejection of single, exclusive truths with
> the flip side of that coin being, of course, that such truths are
> provisional and are adopted until something better comes along. Am I 
> saying
> that this model is better than anything that the physicists have to offer?
> No. I really wouldn't know. I'm just saying that the preference model 
> works
> to explain this data in such a way that it is consistent with the larger
> structure of the MOQ.
>
> As to your claim that "the only way to keep with the empirical is to say
> nothing", I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Silent philosophers
> and physicists? Huh?
>
> Scott said:
> The data shows that the mechanical, spatiotemporally determinist claim is
> wrong. It does not show that the preference claim is right. Show me the
> experiment that verifies the 'preference' claim over the multi-universe
> claim and the non-local hidden variable claim and you'll have yourself a
> Nobel Prize.
>
> dmb says:
> Again, you're approach seems to add claims that nobody has made. The idea
> here is simply that the preference model is better than the causal laws
> model because it agrees with the data better. It works better within the
> MOQ. I mean, you seem to be pretending that these are claims made outside 
> of
> the context of the MOQ, where the explainations of scientists are viewed 
> as
> works of art and not propostions about absolute truths or objective truths
> or anything like that.
>
> thanks
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> 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/
>