[MD] Discrete & Dependent
Magnus Berg
McMagnus at home.se
Fri Sep 19 06:16:13 PDT 2008
Hi again
> Those that first proposed the world to be round, instead of flat, were
> the source of much laughter.
Yes, but the difference between the round-world scientists and philosophers
stating that nothing is real, is that the former had a constructive theory as
opposed to the philosophers that are being very destructive. What would be the
point of doing science if nothing was real anyway?
> In the MOQ there are no
> things-in-themselves. This is clearly stated in the Copleston paper.
Must have missed that, any pointers?
> 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?
Sure, we can call things a combination of static patterns instead. But both the
static patterns and the combination of them are just as *real* nevertheless. If
a crane drops a piano over your head, and the piano starts accelerating toward
you at 9.81 m/s^2, you can't avoid being hit by it by viewing it from a "broader
perspective".
When physics is investigating small stuff, like quarks and such, it's true that
they don't find much that resembles *things*, i.e. hard stuff that hurts when
you get hit by them. But that doesn't mean that the piano (which is made of lots
of those quarks and such) *doesn't* hurt when it hits.
The explanation is that the "quarks and such" are of a lower level than what is
required to hurt. It's like asking "what colour has an up-quark?", or "how does
an electron smell?". But once you get above that level where mass is introduced,
hurt gets very real.
Magnus
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list