[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

Ian said:
First point ...
One thing you say gives me a problem (turning back on where we'd got to)
You said "I consider physicalism to be fundamentally wrong"

I thought we'd pragmatically agreed that any metaphysics was "not
fundamentally right (or wrong)" in any sense.

There are always speculative holes with speculative explanations. I
was just playing the Occam idea that the metaphysics with the least
incredible holes was probably better. No more no less.

Scott:
We agreed that any metaphysics is incomplete. By "fundamentally wrong" I 
mean that a metaphysics is starting from the wrong assumptions. So in that 
sense, physicalism is (from my point of view, of course) fundamentally wrong 
in starting with the assumption of the ubiquity of a physical substrate, 
while the MOQ is not fundamentally wrong in starting with the assumption of 
the ubiquity of value (though, again as I see it, it gets subsequently wrong 
pretty quickly by not recognizing the mutual implication of value, 
consciousness, and semiosis). And you would say that my metaphysics is 
fundamentally wrong in starting with the ubiquity of semiosis.

Because of these different starting points, what you see and what I see as 
incredible holes will be different, so using that as a criterion presupposes 
the metaphysics.

Ian said:
Whatever the quality of my physicalism and your
"mystical-consciousness-ism" (equally based on contracdictory
identity, etc) ... I'd agree that time, causation and explanation, are
far from certain concepts in our framework(s).

Given a common sense view of the passage of time (from whichever
direction we view its arrow) and the clear evolutionary sense in the
MoQ framework - progress over time, and dynamism (things changing at a
base level in this world-view) - I'd say MoQ was hung on a pretty
common sense view of time (eastern or western).

Scott:
Yes, but the common sense view of time is the problem. Common sense is 
metaphysically wrong. More below on how this matters pragmatically.

Ian continued:
Now if you want to develop a whole new metaphor where everything can
exist everywhere all at once (space and time losing any fundamental
axes in our world-view), then I have no in-built reason to deny this
choice of metaphor - in fact I'm sympathetic about where many worlds
and non-locality / entanglement might take us (somewhere pretty
weird), even from my (acknowledged) physicalist perspective. (My
"perspective" may be physicalist, but it's not exclusive of any aspect
of reality that can be seen from any other perspective.)

All I would say, is that if that is your goal, Occam might have a lot
more to say, not just about the complexity of the plug in the hole in
your metaphysics, but also about the millenia of other eastern and
western metaphors for time and causation you're going to have to work
out new metaphors for as well, before you have a consistent view.

Again I have no fundamental objection to your approach - just a
pragmatic one - my physicalist world-view of MoQ has smaller holes,
*and* fewer inconsistencies with existing metaphors.

Scott:
You know the old joke about the guy who looks for his key under the 
streetlight, even though he dropped it in the dark, because "the light is 
better here". That's how I see what you are saying. The eternal is real, but 
you're right that we utterly lack the ability to think in eternal terms. 
What I see this as implying is that there is something seriously wrong with 
us, for which the correct word is "insane". Common sense is a consequence of 
our insanity.

Ian concluded:
My world view is more pragmatic than yours, that's all.
At that point of agreement - I want to move on to practical
exploitation of the MoQ, with that "currently best pragmatic
interpretation". Dead simple.

Scott:
It is only more pragmatic according to your agenda, which is to explore 
within the insane world of common sense, subject to some tweaking as you 
describe above. My agenda is different, namely, to keep this awareness of 
our insanity in mind. Now I'm not saying your agenda is bad (there's nothing 
wrong with science, or with exploring how to make it more flexible), just 
that it won't get to the thing that I consider most important, namely, 
salvation -- which I can now define as becoming sane. Mystics are those who 
have temporary moments of sanity.

Thus I am dubious that what you consider a practical exploitation of the MOQ 
would have much relevance to my agenda. My focus would be on the importance 
of intellect purifying itself -- e.g., in removing social factors, in 
questioning common sensical assumptions, etc., but mainly in disciplining 
itself -- in the process of self-transformation.

(BTW, you mention the "many worlds" interpretation as something you take 
seriously. As I see it, Deutsch's reason for assuming it -- that 
interference of the observed particle must imply the existence of shadow 
particles -- evaporates if one doesn't assume that unobserved light consists 
of spatio-temporal objects. In other words, Deutsch is trying to impose 
common sense in the quantum realm, where it doesn't apply.)

- Scott