[MD] MoQ as religion

[ian glendinning]

Ilya, (and SA) a couple of points ...

Reality, Rationality, all words loaded with history of perceived
meanings, captured in dictionaries and literature .... so not proving
anything much ...

You said
"Are these limits built by the science itself? - No. These limits are
the natural limits
of the rational thought."

I say - Same thing, science is just one means of "rational" thought,
but the current limits to either are just a point in time in evolution
- they keep evolving - and there is no absolute end to this process -
no absolute foundation of any chosen metaphysics.

The difference in the quality of (my) "scientific plus MoQ"
explanations, and your green-alienism, is I can string consistent
arguments together that agree with observation, without "unnecessary"
faith. (This is the old argument I have repeatedly with Scott - the
hole in my metaphysics is smaller than yours, none is absolutely
hole-free, free of a core of faith - belief on trust - a suspension of
disbelief, rather than faith.)

My hole is currently the size (and shrinking all the time) of a
first-cause information-difference-interaction (proto-DQ) , from which
all else has stemmed; yours is about the size of a quite elaborate and
sophisticated green alien. That's the only difference.

(SA, to any good 20th or 21st century "scientist", atoms and hormones
are hugely complicated things evolved from much simpler beginnings.
Information is one such plausible "beginning". And don't forget,
everything may evolve from these, but that is not a simple
reductionist causal argument - not everything "consists" or is "made
up from" or "caused by" these things. Evolution is more sophisticated,
more "strange-loopy" emergent than that.)

Ian

On 4/5/06, Илья Коробков <korobkov_ilya at mail.ru> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> I like your definition of religion as a "belief system"
> very much. Now I can explain my point more clearly.
>
>
> You said that science has it's limits. What is the
> nature of this limits? Are these limits built by the
> science itself? - No. These limits are the natural limits
> of the rational thought.
>
> MoQ tries to go beyond this limits. Go RATIONALLY, you see?
> But it's just impossible! And that impossibility is
> reflected in the fuzzy ontological status of MoQ itself
> (try to reflect on the example in my previous letter:
> > > - What is MoQ?
> > > - Static intellectual pattern.
> > > - What this notion (that MoQ is a static intellectual pattern) is?
> > > - Static intellectual pattern, too.
> > > - And what is this notion?
> > > - The same...
> )
>
> The resolution to go beyond the natural limits to rational
> thought is what puts MoQ and religion in one bed.
> And when we are beyond these limits
> the only criterion of the "the quality of explanation"
> is FAITH. You believe in Quality? - Good for you. - But I
> believe in the green aliens in my head that control all my
> feelings and thoughts. Is your explanation of Reality
> any better than mine?
>
> LFFYA,
> Ilya.
>
> 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/
>