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

[David M]

Hi Case

No macro weirdness, never heard of Schrodinger's cat?

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] David M and DMB clearly disagree -what do others think?


> DM,
>
> I am taking a sabbatical but you made a couple of point recently that I
> would like to comment on:
>
> 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.
>
> [Case}
> I have a few problems with Sneddon thesis not the least of which is his
> toleration for Pirsig's teleological view of evolution and I am not 
> terribly
> thrilled with Whitehead's theology, but as Sneddon points out Whitehead
> makes a valuable contribution with his notion of Process and his
> identification of "occasions" as the primary units of process and reality.
> Occasions unlike experience do not require the involvement of subjects. In
> fact experiences are subsets of occasions. I was especially taken with 
> this:
>
> "The occasion is the fundamental unit of reality, but it is characterized 
> by
> change--it is not something static. On the contrary, when the occasion
> acquires the 'phase' of creation, or finished product, it is no longer in
> the process of creativity, and it ceases to be an occasion. It becomes
> history, eternally unchanging in the form it has taken."
> Sneddon - 1995
>
> I think there is much to Sneddon's view that Pirsig is a "process
> philosopher".
>
> Elsewhere you said:
>
> DM: This is an exception and an unusually simple situation, most processes
> are far more complex and have many possible outcomes. In fact the ball 
> could
> fly off according to quantum theory, only not very often. Science began 
> with
> such simple situations because they were the only ones it could model. 
> There
> is order in this cosmos, but disorder dominates. Science has to go to alot
> of trouble to create experiments that exhibit significant levels of order.
> See Roy Bhaskar's philosophy of science.
>
> [Case]
> I do not think that quantum theory would account for anything as 
> macroscopic
> as a ball flying off or being otherwise displaced in space and time. If 
> all
> that weirdness were not resolved at the submicroscopic level I doubt if 
> the
> macroscopic level would have enough stability for us to be here. On the
> other hand this did get me thinking about how such quantum weirdness might
> relate to the Big Bang. I have not really looked into this so it is 
> probably
> nonsense but one thing about the Big Bang has always bothered me. If all
> that matter had all that gravity pulling in into a point how could it get
> loose? If you have all of the matter in the universe compressed into a
> Euclidian point and all of the force of physics had achieved symmetry and
> gravity fluctuated for even the tiniest fraction of a second, imagine the
> explosion that might result.
>
>
>
> 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/
>