[MD] David M and DMB clearly disagree -what do others think?

[David M]

Hi DMB and all -I want be interested to know what anyone else thinks ofthe 
below disagreement.

Seemy new comments below.

> David M said to dmb:
> You are very confused. The possible is the mother of all that is actual.
> Experience is entirely rich in the possible and the actual. You see an
> actual lion coming your way, the experience/meaning of lion includes the
> possibility of it eating you, without this real possibility you might 
> forget
> to avoid hanging around too long. You see some nice dinner, what would
> dinner be without the possibility of eating it, is this possibility actual
> before you eat the dinner? No it is a real possibility that has yet to
> become actual but is utterly present in your experience of having a dinner
> before you. ...The possible is and so is real yet may never become actual.
> ...you wrongly start associating the possible with some realm disconnected
> from experience. This is where you are going wrong and getting confused. 
> The
> distinction possible/actual simply applies to experience just like DQ/SQ. 
> EG
> mathematicians can be said to explore what is possible, and this has a
> dynamic creative and static differentiating aspect. Mathematicians and 
> other
> forms of knowledge help us to map both what is actual and what is possible
> and how these two aspects of experience-reality relate. And
> experience=reality, it's all real, actual experience and possible
> experience. There is some connection here to the inner/outer distinction
> where we can share experiences of actualised reality where as our
> explorations of what is possible is experience internally and is a rich
> source of DQ, innovation, discovery. ...How do we build, what do we build
> with, if not possibilities? no possibilities no DQ I'm afraid. Surely DQ 
> is
> real DMB?
>


> dmb says:
> If I am confused it's only because you are confusing me. I can see that
> you're trying to equate DQ with "the possible" but it doesn't work.

DM: There is some overlap and some difference.

 I think
> the inner/outer distinction and the mathematics example both betray the 
> fact
> that you're working within the assumptions of SOM here.

DM: I think SOM in your thinking is stoppping you from getting what I am 
suggesting.
I'd be very interested in what others think and would point out that my view 
agrees
with the one in Sneddon's thesis on Anthony's site.
But your answer is an honest one and at last I think we can clearly see what 
we
are disagreeing about.

But the thing that
> really reveals "the possible" as a bunch of nonsense is your assertion 
> that
> "the possible" is known in experience. If you imagine the possibility that
> the lion might try to have you for lunch, you have not experienced that
> possibility.

DM: If you are aware of something you have experienced it. How
else can we talk about it or how else can it effect your behaviour -like
avoiding lions coming your way. Couldthere be any intelligence without
our knowledge/experience of the possible.Sure the possible is not
actual,it may or may not become actual. Is not the actual created by
the possible that becomes actual and the possible that is withdrawn and
fails to become actual? Call the possible unreal if you like but I would
say that is SOM rejecting a real experience because it is not objectified 
experience.


 You have experienced your imagination, your fear, your
> foresight but you have not had the experience of being eaten.

DM: 'You have experienced...." that's right it is experienced and real,
you've nearly got it, your intuition is right, you're explicit thought
is holding you back. I know you dislike me but don't let that stop
you making a breakthrough.


To say, as you
> have above, that this means that "the possible" is part of experience is a
> rather transparent rhetorical slight of hand.

DM: Is it? Why? I think it is driving some SOM assumptions out of typical
common SOM forms of thinking.

 The same fallacy is used in
> your math example too, where the predictive equations are actual and part 
> of
> experience even if they are different from the actual experiments and 
> actual
> applications.

DM: There is pure math and applied math, of course. This is the distinction
I am making, real possible (with DQ & SQ) versus real actual (with DQ & SQ).


> Basically, I think a person has to torture logic and the english language 
> in
> order to make a case that "the possible" is a real thing that we can know 
> in
> experience.

DM: Such is required to be true to MOQ instead of sticking with SOM.

The possible is what may or may not happen.

DM: You've got that right, not too tricky is it.

It refers to what we
> do not yet know, what could be the case.

DM: I know my team may win or lose,so I know the possible future/s.
The actual, by its very nature, is about reducing many possibles to single
actuals, i.e. my team losses.

That's why it is contrasted with
> "the actual" and makes no sense to say that it is real.

DM: A quantum field is a range of real possibles interfering with
each other (causality/lure/quality choice is very real is it not?) and
collapsing to create a single actual event. You know the dead/alive
cat is 2 possibles that exist at once as possibles.

 And that is why we
> can't equate "the possibilty" with DQ, because "the possible" is not part 
> of
> experience.

DM: You need to take a good look at the real richness of your experience.

It only refers to what could be and if it is only possible
> rather than actual then it might also never be.

DM: Yes might never be actual, but is already known in experience as a 
pattern.


 The possible does not exist

DM: Who says? Why? Prove it? How does it become actual
if it has no reality? Is life not more to do with what is possible than with
what has been actual and is now history? Is the possible and non-actual
not the very heart of what DQ is about?

> because it either becomes actual or it doesn't. So if it is known in
> experience, then we can't rightly call it the possible any more. And if it
> never becomes actual then it is also outside of experience.

DM: Sounds confused Dave. Is experience confined to what is
actual? Is all experience real? Are dreams real? Get these
answers right and let's repeat: it's all real, it just ain't all actual.
Experience is a combination of the actual (fixed past) and the possible
(open future). This is the dynamic richness of experience. Otherwise
Dave, you'd never be able to act as an agent turning the real-possible
into the real-actual or the real-never-actual. Some of your possible
lovers became actual ones, others never did become actual lovers,
but even neglected possibles remain real and significant. To deny
this is to deny the reality and sgnificance of real life as it is 
experienced.
Can't see why you'd deny this. I can see why SOM would strongly deny
this.

>
> As you can see, we also disagree about who is confused here.

DM: MOQ says the real is what we experience. I say we experience
possible patterns both before and after they do or do not become actual.
So possible patterns are real if we experience-know them. Just because
these patterns are not objectified in the shared outer world it does not
mean they are not real, that would be SOM. They are real, we have real
ideas that are not objects, and we can make them actual by putting
them out intio the shared world. I can think of a non actual possible
like blue and white stripped grass and I can make it actual via
paint or genetic engineering. This interface between the possible and
the actual is key to existence and life, DQ and SQ. You want to say
the possible is not actual therefore it is not real. This is SOM I believe.
No confusion here, a very clear disagreement I would say. Which
of us is supporting SOM or MOQ is the question?

I have enjoyed this chat very much thank you.

David M