[MD] The MOQ difference

[118]

Hi Andrie,

Sounds like Hawking is coming full circle, getting philosophical.  The
anthropic principle is cool, but I tend to prefer the holographic universe
idea.  We are now getting evidence to support it.

Cheers,
Mark

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:44 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good quality, John, very analytikal, this caught my eye
>
> the fine-tuning problem (Hawking's name for the beast)
>
>
> quote, Jc
>
> I don't believe that everything came from nothing.  I wonder if this
> "everything" had a beginning.  I mean, "beginning" is a term of human
> valuation - based upon our perspective of being born.  And much of what we
> see of life follows this pattern.  But "everything" is a much bigger thing
> than the mere lives that adorn it.  It's like the same issue I had with Mr.
> James and his "multiverse".  When you have a collection of them, then we
> simply have a bigger universe that contains various aspects, one in which
> we
> dwell and have our being.  On the other hand, since they lie outside the
> realm of possible experience, why even postulate their existence?  Doesn't
> sound pragmatic to me.
>
> Neither does asking what came before the big bang?   It's a stupid
> question,
> because we're so entirely logically incapable of thinking outside the
> context of our cosmos.   The way it seems to me, just conceptualizing the
> relationships of the cosmos we're IN, is an infinite game that we have no
> hope of finishing.  But when we get that done, then we can talk about that
> which is outside the big enchilada.  Or how big it is compared to other
> possible enchiladas.
>
>
> Hawking, quote on fine tuning,..
>
> Along with Thomas Hertog at CERN, in 2006 Hawking proposed a theory of
> "top-down cosmology," which says that the universe had no unique initial
> state, and therefore it is inappropriate for physicists to attempt to
> formulate a theory that predicts the universe's current configuration from
> one particular initial state.[20]     [[[[ Top-down cosmology posits that
> in
> some sense, the present "selects" the past from a superposition of many
> possible histories. In doing so, the theory suggests a possible resolution
> of the fine-tuning question: It is inevitable that we find our universe's
> present physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those
> past histories that led to the present conditions. ]]]]]]In this way,
> top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find
> ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking an
> ensemble of multiple universes.
>
> --------
>
>
> the fine-tuning question, Answer by Hawking stephen.
> TOTAL HARMONY WITH THE ANTROPIC PRINCIPLE, (not entropic)
>
> ISOLATED BETWEEN HOOKS
>
>
>
> Adrie, one has no obligation to accept it , but if you think of it , the
> briljance in the line is just incredible.
> and i have to give him credit for his black hole evaporation work.
>
> Greetz, Adrie
>
>
>
> 2010/10/8 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
>
> > g'day Ham,
> >
> >
> > >  If epistemology necessitates
> > >> hierarchy, then I disagree with you and Mr. Pirsig both.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The existential dichotomy is Sensibility/Being, and "co-dependent
> > arising"
> > > may be another way of expressing the dualistic ontogeny of creation.
> >  Either
> > > expression presupposes a primary source or "first cause" which, in my
> > > philosophy, is Essence.  Epistemology does not necessitate hierarchy,
> but
> > it
> > > does necessitate a metaphysical source.  I lay no claim to knowledge of
> > > "triadic signs".
> > >
> > >
> > John:  Well, pardon me for my ignorance, but to start with, I'd define
> > sensibility as being, so how can they be a dichotomy?  But if I can use
> the
> > labels of subject and object, aren't we talking about the same thing?
>  For
> > to me, this self and other is the dualistic ontogeny of existence.
> > "Creation" is a bit too high-falutin' for my taste.  It implies a Creator
> > and all, and I don't "go there" - at least not at such a basic
> > level.(metaphysics as opposed to religious formulation).
> >
> > Ham:
> >
> > Either expression presupposes a primary source or "first cause" which, in
> > my
> > philosophy, is Essence.  Epistemology does not necessitate hierarchy, but
> > it
> > does necessitate a metaphysical source.  I lay no claim to knowledge of
> > "triadic signs".
> >
> > John:
> >
> > "first cause" is a bit problematic for me also.  (I'm a guy with a lot of
> > problems!)  "Cause" is such a nebulous term.  Such a useful, subjective
> > tool.  But it's too subjective.  Any given cause is an arbitrary choice
> > from
> > such a tremendous field of possible differing facts, which could also
> > logically be called "a cause" that I'd chime in with Pirsig that for any
> > given phenomena, an infinite number of causes (hypothetically speaking)
> is
> > possible.
> >
> > So to turn around and assign this arbitrary and subjective way of seeing
> > things - and use it to prove or demonstrate something so fundamental and
> > transcendant of human experience, seems to me like hubris and logical
> > foolishness all in one blow.
> >
> > And the other problem with "creation" is that it cuts off dialogue with
> too
> > many people, right off.  Such a variety of  religious views or even
> strong
> > anti-religious stances amongst people!   So "creator/creation is
> > problematic
> > on that level, as well.  I liked "the whole enchilada", but it sounds a
> bit
> > frivolous, I admit.
> >
> > I'm not that studied in semiotics either.  But I do know this about
> "signs"
> > that when I explore and find from different places, similar signs
> pointing
> > me in a direction, then I conclude that there is some Quality reason
> behind
> > the congruence.
> >
> >
> > > [John, previously]:
> > >
> > >  But even moreso, Ham, the only thinking Descartes did was
> > >> in concepts provided by his culture - is the point Pirsig made.
> > >>
> > >
> > > [Ham, previously]:
> > >
> > >  I disagree.  The only "concept" Descartes was concerned with
> > >> was: What is provable beyond all doubt?"  Things and events
> > >> could be mere illusions, tricks played on him by a deceitful god.
> > >> All that he knew for a certainty was that he himself was the
> > >> Knower of these things.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > John: And what is doubt, Ham?  What is doubt?  It's the opposite of
> 'peace
> > of mind', I'd say.  Some instinct or intuition that keeps one asking,
> > seeking.  When is it satisfied?  That's almost an entirely subjective
> > thing.  But the object of enquiry IS the subject, no?  So obviously this
> > verbal trick Descartes has used on himself, is shallow and ill-conceived.
> > Perhaps it was appropriate for his time and his struggles, and no doubt
> he
> > was brilliant in many ways, but his thinking does not seem to really
> > satisfy
> > any real questions.
> >
> > All he really knows, is the self and the other.  Together always, and one
> > evidently thinking about the other.  That's the kindergarten, bedrock
> basis
> > of all phenomena, experience or conceptualization of self.  I think about
> > something, therefore I and something exist.  That video snip that Marsha
> > shared was really a great tutorial on what I'd say is the heart of the
> MoQ
> > -
> > the place where subject and object meet - where the experience occurs.
>  The
> > idea of this event having a postive spin - that it's a GOOD thing to
> > conceptualize the cosmos. That it's a good thing to realize the
> > relationships of being, from highest to lowest - that being itself is
> > dependent upon this positive spin out of the maelstrom of immediate
> > experience.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > [John]:
> > >
> > >  And here he went just as astray as assuming the things and
> > >> events of a given reality. How can there be a knower if there
> > >> is nothing to know?
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > Ham:
> >
> >
> > > This assumes there is nothing prior to the existential divide.
> >
> >
> > John:  Ok, I hadn't thought about it that way at all, but I'd definitely
> > say
> > there is no reason to postulate any thing prior to the existential
> divide.
> > Such a way of trying to get outside of time and experience, seems futile
> > and
> > foolish to me.  How can one know anything about that which is outside of
> > the
> > existential divide?  If such insights do exist, they are of a different
> > order than the simple philosophical wonderings we stick to in the game
> > called "metaphysics".
> >
> > But I think this is an old issue with us, and perhaps we can dig a bit
> into
> > it and get somewhere good.
> >
> >
> >
> > Again you are invoking the 'ex nihilo' fallacy.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't believe that everything came from nothing.  I wonder if this
> > "everything" had a beginning.  I mean, "beginning" is a term of human
> > valuation - based upon our perspective of being born.  And much of what
> we
> > see of life follows this pattern.  But "everything" is a much bigger
> thing
> > than the mere lives that adorn it.  It's like the same issue I had with
> Mr.
> > James and his "multiverse".  When you have a collection of them, then we
> > simply have a bigger universe that contains various aspects, one in which
> > we
> > dwell and have our being.  On the other hand, since they lie outside the
> > realm of possible experience, why even postulate their existence?
>  Doesn't
> > sound pragmatic to me.
> >
> > Neither does asking what came before the big bang?   It's a stupid
> > question,
> > because we're so entirely logically incapable of thinking outside the
> > context of our cosmos.   The way it seems to me, just conceptualizing the
> > relationships of the cosmos we're IN, is an infinite game that we have no
> > hope of finishing.  But when we get that done, then we can talk about
> that
> > which is outside the big enchilada.  Or how big it is compared to other
> > possible enchiladas.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Even you agree that the Value (Quality) upon which Mr. Pirsig has based
> > the
> > > MoQ doesn't exist independently of realization.
> >
> >
> >
> > Very true.  Not the absolute subject, nor the absolute object, but
> meaning
> > and self and realization and everything is found where the two meet and
> > mingle.  It's the relationship - the marriage, the dance, that is the
> > bedrock of existence.  However, it's not just a simple relation between
> > subject and object, for life is more than a random combination of
> elements
> > which happened to evolve intelligence by pure chance. Hence the need for
> > Quality and understanding a triadic relationship of being.
> >
> >
> >
> > > It is the sensible agent who actualizes essential Value as the object
> > > (being) of his existential knowing.  That's why I don't think
> > "co-dependent
> > > arising" adequately explains creation.
> >
> >
> > I think I agree.   "co-dependent"  has connotations of two  distinct
> > entities, mutually arising, but equal  and just a duality.  And there's
> > something more to the story than subjects being the other side of
> objects.
> > There's a purpose, a positive spin involved that gives extra emphasis to
> > the
> > "actualizer of realized Value".  That's partly why the idea (which Pirsig
> > toyed with) of a trinitarian approach is appealing.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >  Also, could it not be said that the existence of a supreme
> > >> deceitful being is just as much otherness as things in
> > >> themselves?  I think philosophers get in trouble when their
> > >> skepticism at knowing reality "as it really is" leads them
> > >> to postulating nothingness as an antidote.
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Antinomy, not "antidote", John.  Nothingness is the necessary delimiter
> > of
> > > Beingness.
> >
> >
> >
> > John:  Well I don't think it's necessary.  I'd saying beingness is
> > self-evident and "nothingness" is just a ghost - a postulation for those
> > trying to think outside the box.  This is the same issue, over and over.
> > The big bootstrap issues.  I'm a simple guy.  Being I can point to.
> > Nothingness I can't.  Who says Beingness needs a delimiter?  Why can't it
> > just go on forever?  If there are boundaries, you can't draw them.  When
> > one
> > attempts to define the boundaries of being they recede like the speed of
> > light from inside a speeding rocket.
> >
> > Ham:
> >
> >
> > > It's the critical factor in differentiating and defining the "thousand
> > and
> > > one things" in terms of their relations, dynamics, and quantitative
> > > properties.  Without nothingness the evolution of a pluralistic
> universe
> > in
> > > which we are the conscious participants is a metaphysical
> impossibility.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > John:  Ok, you seem to be using "nothingness" there in the same way I'd
> use
> > "negation".  There's as much difference between nothing and negation as
> > there is between a minus and a zero.  I understand that I realize red
> > because it's "not yellow, not orange, etc".  But unless you're using it
> > that
> > way, I can't even begin to understand how nothingness is necessary to the
> > evolution of a pluralistic universe... or for that matter, what the hell
> is
> > a pluralistic universe anyway?  I only know this one universe.  I don't
> > know
> > anything about what came before it, or how it was caused, or when it came
> > into being, or any of those things.  I've heard stories.  Some were more
> > entertaining than others.   "believing in nothingness is like believing
> in
> > wood.  Ok, great, you believe in wood.  Now what are you going to build?"
> >  I
> > hope you got a chance to listen to that guy Ham.  He was pretty good.
> >
> >
> > Ham:
> >
> >
> > > I doubt that it is possible to communicate everything you feel or
> > > experience to others.  But even if it were, it isn't others who
> establish
> > > the "meaning and definition" of your reality.
> >
> >
> > John:  "My"reality.  There is something like "my" reality.  And this is
> > contrasted with the reality that we all share in common.  But my reality
> > differs from this shared or communal reality.  I can dream, imagine,
> > construe, guess or know, and such facts and patterns and choices are what
> > make me who I am.  I am my reality.  And how are the boundaries and
> > definitions of MY reality formed Ham?  By what they are not.  They are
> not
> > the same as Your reality, or they differ in subtle ways by the communal
> > reality that others percieve.  So I disagree completely.  My reality is
> > exactly established and defined by others.
> >
> > Ham
> >
> >
> >
> > > You do this yourself.
> >
> >
> > John:
> >
> > Mostly.  I make the choices to think or be different, to go off in my own
> > reality.  But what happens if others observe my reality, and like it?
> > Suppose they choose to share with me, my reality in someway?  In that
> case,
> > my reality has become our reality - which is redundant because "our"
> > reality
> > is just "reality"
> >
> > Ham:
> >
> >
> > > Being an object to others in no way enhances the meaning of your life.
> > >  Conscious awareness is proprietary to each self, not a transferable
> > > commodity.  You are no more a "mirror to others" than they are to you.
> > >
> >
> >
> > John:
> >
> > "being an object to others" isn't something I think about, or like to
> think
> > about.  Hmmmm... Interesting.  I don't think anyone likes being
> > "objectified".  I think to do so generates a low-quality feeling that
> means
> > something more significant than we realize.  So I definitely agree that
> > it's
> > not any enhancement.  I agree that conscious awareness is proprietary to
> > the
> > self.  Heck, as far as I can see, it's identical with what I'd call my
> > "self" so I'll certainly allow its propietary nature.  But part of my
> > trouble understanding what you mean, is understanding what you are
> arguing
> > against.  I mean, there's no danger of any hive-mind social construct
> > gobbling up such a self-contained consciousness.  I see no reason to fear
> > any chance of loss of individuality in understanding it's context and
> where
> > it gets it's meaning - in relationships.  Variety of individuality
> > enhances,
> > rather than detracts, from true individuality.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I have difficulty understanding people who feel they must get the
> > attention
> > > of others in order to "leave their mark on the world".  Somehow this
> > > behavior seems to run counter to the morality of rational,
> self-directed
> > > value.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I, on the other hand.  Find it very easy to understand people who crave
> > social affirmation.  It's an impulse I feel myself, and so easily
> > comprehend
> > it when expressed by others.  _Our_ Reality, if you will. Or Thee Reality
> -
> > the one we have to deal with.  Most of human experience is related some
> way
> > or another, to this social striving.   And if this behavior is by
> conscious
> > choice, then how does it differ from "rational, self-directed value?"  My
> > self wants affirmation, how much more self-directed can I be then, than
> > when
> > I seek it?
> >
> >
> > Sorry I took so long to get back to you, John.  The above should address
> > the
> > > substance of your last two posts.  I was also sorry to learn of your
> > > personal problems, and hope your mother recovers soon.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Our dialogues are like wine to me, Ham.  The waiting just makes it
> better.
> > But don't worry about me.  I have no personal problems.  Everything is
> > perfect, and life is good.  Interesting and "something to write home
> > about".
> >
> > And as long as my mom needs care, I'll probably have to spend my nights
> in
> > the comforts of civilization and my wife's bed, so... I for one won't be
> > saddened by a long convalescence.
> >
> >
> > Philosophically yours,
> >
> > John
> > 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/md/archives.html
> >
>
>
>
> --
> parser
> 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/md/archives.html
>