[MD] Natural or supernatural?

[David M]

Hi DMB you old bruiser

Well did you see my question mark? And then I suggest not according to our
normal conceptions. I've been reading some Aristotle and some quantum 
physics
stuff and they seem pretty keen to think of the possible and the potential 
as
the unrealised and the non-actual.

I thought Aristotle's dismissal of the potential and possible got us into 
the
SOM problem all along.

Would a design for a boat be an actual boat?
Would we consider its modal status to have changed if we actually build it?
When something new manifests itself as a pattern for the first time are we 
not
amazed,is this not creation, is this not what we mean by DQ? What was the
status of the pattern before being manifest? Was it not possible in contrast
to being actual? If DQ is actual why is Mr Pirsig so cautious about defining
it? SQ simply repeats, materialists only recognise SQ, DQ is dynamic,it
brings something extra to the process, it is not what went before.What does
it bring? Where does it bring it from if it was not available before and is
not the same again? I wonder does DMB really understand the MOQ?
DMB knows everything so he is not impressed with the possible, nothing
cannot take him by surprise, there is no wow in his existence anymore.
Of course, I am suggesting a natural supernaturalism as Thomas Carlyle put 
it.
I don't think any god parted any red seas. But every emerging pattern
is a little DQ miracle. Its natural yet exceeding the actual, I thought 
that's
what DQ did. Maybe your DQ is a kind of mechanism? Or have I got you
wrong and you agree with me?

Your shot......
David M




> DM said to dmb:
> Is what is possible part of nature? Not according to our normal 
> conceptions
> of actuality. Is not DQ the manifestation of the possible? Is not DQ
> super-natural (more than SQ) in this sense? Silly versions of the
> supernatural obviously include the impossible rather than the possible. 
> Yet
> how possible did human beings look 12 billion years ago?
>
> dmb says:
> The possible is not yet actual and is therefore supernatural? Sorry, but I
> think your logic is flawed in several ways here, Dave. 1) I don't see how
> the distinction between DQ and sq can be equated with the distinction
> between possible and the actual simply because DQ and sq are both actual. 
> 2)
> There is nothing supernatural about the possible. 3) DQ and sq are both
> completely natural. 4) The inability to see 12 billion years into the 
> future
> does not mean that the future is impossible. 5) It seems to me that
> "manifestation of the possible" would be sq and not DQ. The possible, if
> that means talk and speculation about the future, would also be static. 6)
> Basically, I think the distinction between the actual and the possible is
> almost completely irrelevant to the discussion of supernaturalism.
>
> Hope you're well,
> dmb
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
> http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
>
> 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/
>