[MD] Natural or supernatural?

[David M]

Hi DMB

Let's go back to basics. What is the possible? Let's take an
unusually simple example. Let's roll a dice. Whilst it rolls it
does not have a meaningful role in our little game, where we
decide how many squares we can move. We know it has 6
possibilities, and we are waiting for these six possibilities to
become a single actuality. The dice stops with one side facing
up. What were six possibilities have turned into one actuality.
Five of the possibilities (for this particular roll) have been lost
for ever.

What I am suggesting is that the idea of the transcendental
really came out of the reality of such possibilities, their
reduction into a actuality that is always a reduction, a subset,
of the possible, and the loss of most possibilities that is built
into the very being of what is actual.

On a richer level, a DMB is bornin the USA, with a vast wealth of
possibilities of which he will only realise a very small proportion.

To put it in different language, what emerges is dynamic and
incredibly rich, what never emerges and remains Nothing is
is even vaster and richer.

Or again, this actual world is only one of a vast range of
possible worlds. The point of freedom is surely to choose
a future that occupies one of the better rather than one of
the awful possible future worlds.

I do wonder what an MOQer means by the law of physics.
This is a suspect notion form an MOQer and is suspect at
the current edge of physics as we currently know it.

Laws, bad metaphor, implies a law giver you big theist you.

For me the MOQ notion of DQ implies pattern forming
capacities that are creative and therefore not rule bound,
its onlyyou mechanists that get bogged down with these laws.

As John Dupre (Phil of science at Stanford) points out, current science
describes our cosmos as one of inherent disorder with
a few islands of order where we can hope to control
and understand things according to a few 'laws' or patterns that we
have been able to string together. The overplay of order in
the early period of science is simply too time limited and local
in its outlook.

Any progress? Popper's little book on propensities might help you.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Natural or supernatural?


> David M said to dmb:
> The point is to explore the meaning of the concepts of determinism and
> freedom, these concepts are
> rich not thin. But you seem to wish to avoid this.
>
> dmb says:
> Avoid what? Like I already said, its not a matter of disagreement so much 
> as
> comprehension. I simply don't understand what you're saying. How can I 
> wish
> to avoid "this" when i don't even know what "this" is. For example,...
>
> David M continued:
> It seems to me that the concept from 'freedom' is inseparable from
> 'possibility' and this latter concept is inseparable from the one that the
> realm of the actual is separate from that of the possible, and that the
> latter concept is one that is richly explored in religious thought.
>
> dmb replies:
> Huh? Possibility is richly explored in religious thought. Okay. So what? 
> The
> problem is not with the explorations of religious thought. The problem is
> that I have no idea what you are saying about those explorations. Look at
> your own words here, David. Its extremely vague. Freedom is inseparable 
> from
> possibility? What does that mean? We are not free to do the impossible? 
> Our
> freedom is limited to what is possible? I keep thinking, yea, so what. 
> What
> sort of freedom are you talking about here? What sort of possibility are 
> you
> talking about. Anything that doesn't break the laws of physics? What does 
> it
> mean to distinquish between the actual and the possible? Is this any
> different from distinquishing between what is and what will be? I mean, 
> are
> we talking about the processes of time and space, or what? And if this is 
> so
> "richly explored in religious thought" why are you not sharing some of 
> this?
>
> David M said:
> Seems to me you rightly avoid unpacking your thin and empty notions here
> because it would make you defenceless against that which you fear. That 
> the
> MOQ cannot sustain a repression an outlawing of religious thought. ...Am I
> wrong?
>
> dmb says:
> Yes. If you think I have any idea what you're talking about, you are
> definately wrong. For example, which of my notions are thin? What makes 
> you
> think I've avoided "unpacking" anything? How would unpacking make me
> defenceless? Against what? What do you think I'm afraid of? Who said
> anything about the MOQ repressing or outlawing religious thought? Maybe 
> you
> think I'm asking these questions out of fear or as a way to avoid 
> something,
> but I'm telling you honestly that I do not see the point. See, if you 
> answer
> questions like this, I might have some pretty good clues about what you're
> saying. I'm not rejecting your ideas so much as criticizing your
> communicaton skills. If I knew what you were talking about I'd have a real
> chance to agree or disagree with it. Maybe then I could try to avoid it, 
> but
> right now I don't even know what your point is. I'm not even sure what the
> topic is anymore.
>
> Maybe you're the one who is doing the avoiding here, eh? I have repeatedly
> asked for explantions and repeatedly complained that your comments are too
> vague. Remember the joke about that? I'd complained that your assertions
> looked to me like a bad birthday card. I don't know if you have been 
> trying
> to conceal the extent to which these concepts come from "religious 
> thought"
> or what. Don't you suppose that it would've been helpful to explain what
> these terms mean in the religious context from which they are drawn?
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 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/