[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Arlo, (Platt)

Platt has tried to paint your veiw of emergence as "oops" while your
view of emergence is more like "aha." I haven't read most of this
thread, but I'm fairly certain that he has you wrong when he says that
you are promoting a view of the universe as the product of chance. I
think you've just been saying that though the creative process is
unpredictable, it is the accumulation of preferences rather than rolls
of dice.

I don't know how much Platt is promoting a sort of Qualigod. His
responses to me suggest that he is not. Is Qualigod something that
hears his prayers? I don't think so. But I suspect that Platt would
like to preserve as much as he can in Christianity without the notion
that God is a person-like entity. I think "God" for Platt is a
metaphor for the creative aspect of the universe, for DQ, but he
doesn't like hearing us liberal atheists peering down our noses at
those for whom the "God as person" metaphor has meaning, since it is
still better than the "oops" metaphor that he likes to paint you as
supporting, and because DQ is a mystery anyway. The choice of one
metaphor or another is a personal one that doesn't need defending
until one starts to say that he knows what God wants other people to
do.



Arlo:
> In either event, what's your take on this? Do you see my point that saying
> "Quality created carbon atoms" implies and intential force that removes free
> value preferences from the subatomic particles?
>
> Let me ask this way, what is the *difference* in saying "God created carbon
> atoms" and "Quality created carbon atoms"?

Steve:
I think the difference is just what you say. God "implies an intential
force" while Quality has no plan, it is just a preference for
betterness. But I do see DQ as referring to the creative aspect of the
universe. I know what you are getting at, but I don't have a problem
with the "create" metaphor. It does leave open the possibility of
misunderstanding, but if we agree that Quality is not a person, then
we shoudl have no problem.

Best,
Steve