[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Case]

[Ham]
Personally, I dislike comparing Philosophy to Science because the
aims and methods are different in each case, and crossing from one
discipline to the other tends to disparage the other (e.g., Richard Dawkins
debunking religion; Karl Popper on falsification of scientific theory).
Inasmuch as Science is not intrinsically opposed to Philosophy, nor is
Philosophy opposed to Science, I see no need for this kind of debate.

[Case]
I would be interested in hearing your objections to Popper.

[Ham]
My answer would have been somewhat different: Science is about the "what"
and "how" of experiential reality.  Philosophy is about the "what" and "why"
of ultimate reality.  Morality is about what man's life "could be".
However, I agree that Science can "inform" morality, and that the
pronouncements of Science are continually being tested.

[Case]
Good philosophy picks up where science leaves off and attempts to explain
the "why" of the "what" science has revealed. Philosophy aimed solely at
seeking "ultimate reality" unaided by science it just knocking about in the
dark.

[Ham]
If anybody believes "our destiny is being determined by a
divine plan or in harmony with some ultimate cosmic principle," it's the
author of the MoQ, whose theory is that morality is innate in the universe
and is moving us toward betterness.  

[Case]
I agree and have complained bitterly about this.

[Ham]
I can't speak for Platt and "the
others", but I happen to believe that we live as free creatures in an amoral
universe and that our destiny is largely what we make of it.  Such a belief
does not have to be "tested, measured and specified"; it can be observed in
the history of man's intellectual, cultural, medical, and technological
advancement.

[Case]
I would suggest that your notion of freedom and autonomy is overrated. Our
beliefs and behaviors are shaped by the natural world around us and the
communities that we live in. Freedom is constrained by so many external
variables outside of our control that a statement like "our destiny is
largely what we make of it" is rendered either trite or as psycho-babble. I
would further suggest that our history IS the process by which our beliefs
have been tested.

[Ham]
Since I don't really understand your concept of "levels of relationships
emerging from lower orders of relationships" or what you mean by "the
inverse of emergence," I'll opt to ignore that statement.

[Case]
Emergence has been discussed here at length. Polanyi mentions the example of
the rules of chess. They are enabled by but can not be predicted by or
reduced to the laws of physics and biology. The activities of Life emerge
from the laws of physics but at some point begin to play by their own rules.
This is the point Pirsig makes in constructing his levels.

I am suggesting that emergence and reduction are opposite sides of the same
coin. 

[Ham}
By "elsewhere" do you mean establishing life on Mars or in outer space?
Otherwise, you are expressing the law of Nature which is that all life seeks
to survive and flourish.

[Case]
I always thought that space colonies or the Moon would be great places to
start. But it seems we would rather let such habitats as we have built fall
from the sky while we resume the task of thinning the herd through pointless
conflicts.

[Ham]
It would appear that you have no use for metaphysical concepts and have
concluded that finite life and its replication is the sole purpose of
existence.  That is your prerogative as a free individual, of course.  As
"the ultimate manifestation of dynamic quality," however, it doesn't measure
up to my idea of an enlightened personal philosophy.

[Case]
I have little use for metaphysical concepts that are rooted in shear
speculation. One of the most difficult things about science is its
insistence that when we ask a question, we must be able to propose a way of
verifying any answer we give it. This requires discipline but to do
otherwise is simply spinning tall tales. The tales maybe elegant, logically
consistent, even beautiful, but if they have no consequences, make no
predications, and can never be tested in any way, then tall tales is all
they are.

For example when you speak of finite life as though that could possibly be
transcended, you are spinning tales. When you speak of a perspective outside
of space/time without regard to what physics and mathematics tell us about
space/time, the tales you spin lose elegance, logical meaning and aren't
even going to look all that good at closing time.