[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Ham Priday]

Hello David --

> So you do not value what quantum theory has added to science.
> Maybe not science at all. The possible has to be treated as having real
> effects in quantum theory.

When someone opens a dialogue with the phrase "So you do not...", I know
that he intends to throw back a misconstrued interpretation of a remark that
I've made.  In fact, I never said or insinuated anything like what you have
stated.

By questioning the soundness of a physicist's unscientific speculation about
metaphysical reality, I am not impugning quantum theory.   Science has its
place in the practical world of relational phenomena, and I am not
discounting it.  But when a scientist speaks off the record as an armchair
philosopher, I take his assertions with a grain of salt, as any
discriminating person should.

Concerning my criticism of the "infinite possibilities exist" premise, I
said:

> First of all, it doesn't resolve any metaphysical questions;
> it just adds unnecessary complexity.

You replied:

> Exactly, but it does make the questions unavoidable, ands this is
> much better than pretending you have answers when you don't.

Metaphysical questions have always been unavoidable.  This particular theory
doesn't make them any more so.  I do not "pretend" to have answers; I only
offer an hypothesis for consideration in lieu of what is humanly
unanswerable.  I make this quite clear in my thesis.

> You find Nothing complex! How funny you are!

That's a play on words, David.

Actually my concept of nothingness is very complex.  If you've read my
thesis, you know that I consider nothingness the divider of all things.
That's hardly a theory that's likely to be taught in Philosophy 101.  Since
you persist in bringing up the topic, I'll provide some additional laugh
material for you ...

-- Nothingness is the primary cause of existential reality.
-- The individual self is essentially nothingness.
-- Nothingness divides Essence into finite phenomena.
-- Nothingness is the difference between awareness and beingness.
-- Without nothingness there is no being, hence no existence.

I also said:
> But even man's options are limited by existential conditions.

[DM]:
> Well yes in finite circumstances there are finite choices, but for
> the universe as a whole this does not apply. The whole point though
> is that we do experience the possible, it is the future, without it there
> are no choices, and it has value, how else would we be able to make
> choices without values? Although we can choose to ignore value, how
> else do you explain evil? We can certainly bring some hell to earth if we
> so choose.

How does one make choices for the universe as a whole?  I don't follow you
here.  You're begging the question when you say we experience the future.
It is the "present" when we experience it.  Certainly the values we choose
now affect what will happen in the future; did I say they wouldn't?

I don't attempt to explain evil in moralistic terms because I consider
morality a human institution established to deal with the contingencies of a
relativistic world.  However, since I believe value to be the essence of
man, I maintain that the use of force or coercion to deny man his freedom is
evil insofar as it violates the principle.  And, yes, this applies to
killing in warfare as well as execution by capital punishment.  I justify
these actions by virtue of what you might accept as a corollary of Pirsig's
morality maxim: Some things are more evil than others.

[DM]:
> The great makes great choices, the dumb make dumb ones.
> If the great make great choices they must have avoided the dumb ones
> that exist but which they do not wish to actualise. This is DQ at work.
> Either way you seem to think that there is a choice, so there must be
> real possibilities to choose from. Sorry if this is a big gap in your
> philosophy to date, but congratulations your choices have just expanded
> if you are honest about it. But go on you can admit you were wrong
> like a man.

Every choice is a possibility, since only a fool would choose what is
impossible.  I don't know what "DQ at work" means in this context, but I
presume it has to do with values.  I submit that when we make a choice we
are making a value judgment.  It is the value of what we choose that compels
us to act on that choice.  If this is DQ at work, we're in agreement.

[DM]:
> If we are to make choices we need to be able to make value
> judgements between them based on their quality.V alues are
> central. Shall I save the drowning man or let him drown,
> a real choice, you choose, all choice reflects values.

Okay.  That appears to be consistent with what I said above.

[Ham, previously]:
> The New Agers are very fond of dreaming up fantasies
> to account for things they can't explain.  They've introduced us
> to multi-dimensional universes, extra-terrestrial seeding of life
> on earth, time travel, and prophetic advice from previous
> incarnations. Your realm of infinite possibilities would be a
> welcome addition to their list.

[DM]:
> Is that a grown up argument?

Why not?  It's as grown up as anything you've said to me.

[Ham, previously]:
> How easy it is to identify what you can't experience as Nothing.
> Have you ever given serious thought to the axiom that nothing
> can come from nothing?

[DM]:
> Yes it implies that we don't exist, but here we are.

Your reasoning is bass ackwards.  Since we exist, we came from SOMETHING.
That something may be a "no-thing" but it can't be nothing.

[Ham, previously]:
> I don't need an incomprehensible heirachy of quality or
> possibility for my ontology.

[DM]:
> Then it is a flat and dead and unopen philosophy where
> nothing new appears under the sun.

That depends on your perspective.  Yours is a rather shallow one.

[Ham, previously]:
> Now, finally, you reveal your true colors.  This allusion to the "empty"
> temple at Jerusalem is meant to be a dig at theism.  The "false idol" here
> is my supposed deity.  Well, Essence is not a deity.  You're barking up
> the wrong tree, David, and I think a practicing theist would agree.

[DM]:
> God is plausible only as a possibility not yet brought about.

Not yet brought about?  Now there's a curious concept!  Is "DQ at work"
creating the possibility of God?  I'd be interested to learn how the Creator
of the universe is not yet born.
You'll have to explain this to me.  (Maybe I'll find it as funny as you
found my explanation of an uncreated source.)

You're a barrel of fun, David, but it's time for bed now.

Goodnight,
Ham