[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Ham Priday]

 Squonk --

> I should like to know how you deny it Ham, not simply read a
> statement that you do so.  This is the third time i have had to ask you,
> which seems a little unfair.  Hume, following John Locke, argues that
> finite experience can be extrapolated to infinite proportion.

I'm sorry, Squonk, but I do not see that "infinite proportion" relates 
either by logic or analogy to a "cosmic principle".  You are challenging me 
with apples-and-pears analogies.  Frankly, I don't even know what "infinite 
proportion" is supposed to mean.  You imply that the experience of 
Excellence and "intellectual discourse" are both extendable to a cosmic 
principle.  What, pray tell, would that principle be?  Does it mean that the 
universe is infinitely excellent or absolutely discursive?

You talk about the experience of total darkness being extrapolated to 
infinity.  Does this lead to the logical principle that ultimate reality is 
undifferentiated?  You then quote Hume who has categorically rejected the 
possibility of reasoning to a uniformity principle, thus refuting the 
argument you seem to be making by inference.

Hume states that "All inferences from experience ... are effects of custom 
[habit], not of reasoning. ...Without the influence of custom, we should be 
entirely ignorant of every matter of fact, beyond what is immediately 
present to our memory and senses. ...There is no uniformity principle, there 
is no good argument of any kind for uniformity."  These statements would 
appear to contradict your claim that "Hume, following John Locke, argues 
that finite experience of any kind may be extrapolated."  You have me 
totally confused.  I'm not all that acquainted with Hume or Locke, but these 
arguments seem to be pointing in opposing directions.

Inference is only an assumption that one proposition is analogous to 
another.  No philosopher would claim it is something we can base a cosmic 
principle on.  Since this entire discussion was headed off by your 
inferences, you're forcing me to deal with abstractions.  Speaking of what's 
"fair", why should I have to guess how this all relates to the MoQ and 
Essentialism?  I suggest that we start talking in real terms about real 
claims.  Precisely, what is the point (or complaint) you are trying to make? 
Once I know that, I can provide the kind of response that addresses your 
question.

Thanks, Squonk.
--Ham