[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[MarshaV]

At 08:16 AM 9/19/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha
>
>>You wrote "I think you (Bo) and many others"?  Who else are you addressing?
>
>Can't think of anyone in particular right now, but since my view of 
>the MoQ's levels quite recently evolved because some observations 
>didn't quite fit in my old view, I'd say that I can find some pile 
>of "r" in every other view.
>
>On the other hand, most others here are quite fuzzy when it comes to 
>details about the levels, they mostly claim they are just one 
>convenient way to view reality, not reality in itself.
>
>>You are not talking about things-in-themselves, are you?  Because 
>>they do no exist within the MOQ.  Right?  This is, of course, 
>>related to my question in the Pattern thread.
>
>Yes, I saw that. But yes, I'm talking about things-in-themselves. 
>What else? And I very much think they exist within the MoQ, 
>otherwise I wouldn't be so dead set on trying to explain them within 
>the MoQ's levels.
>
>Think of it this way. If the MoQ were to say that things doesn't 
>really exist, it would invalidate everything that physics, and all 
>other sciences, have ever accomplished. It would say something like:
>
>- Well, guys, it's very convincing and such, but I'm afraid non of 
>it is real cause we can't make heads or tails of it philosophically.
>
>Then science would simply laugh at philosophy and go on with its own 
>business anyway. But I think philosophy *can* help, but then it must 
>of course acknowledge the reality of what the sciences are doing, 
>and that's a big part of what my latest essay is about.
>
>         Magnus

Greeting Magnus,

Those that first proposed the world to be round, instead of flat, 
were the source of much laughter.  In the MOQ there are no 
things-in-themselves.  This is clearly stated in the Copleston 
paper.  The MOQ does not invalidate everything that physics, and all 
other sciences has ever accomplished.  It now views these 
accomplishments from a broader perspective.  It's mutually, 
interdependent, static patterns of value instead of 
things-in-themselves.  Hasn't physics been moving in that direction any ways?

Marsha





.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.