[MD] Through a glass darkly

[118]

Hi Adrie,
I understood most of your post for a change, I must be getting
smarter.  I have several comments below,
Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:41 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The reason i'v been asking for this is a possible upcoming conflict in your
> theory
> as Anthropocentrism is the opposite twinbrother of 'Theocentrism', and using
> them intertwined like Mark-,and you , sometimes by implied formulations.

[Mark]
Intertwined is a good word.  Such a thing comes from not
differentiating between man and god so anthro- and theo- become the
same thing.  That we have a centrism at all, denotes a circle with a
center.  I am not sure if such a thing is needed for Quality.  So, the
many eyes of Quality are just that, senses that comprise a whole.  Of
course, this is just an incomplete analogy.  So, I do not intend to
suckle such a thing.
>
>>see
[Mark previously]
>     "Yes, we can be seen as dark glasses, I prefer that we are one of the
>      many eyes of God, as Ham and I have been writing."end.
>      ------------------------------------------------------------------
>      (diffracting the creator's entity, by shredding it into the cluster of
> the human
>       race , is still placing(imho) the creator on top of the pyramid.; and
> in such
>       Anthropocentrism seems to conflict Theocentrism.)
>
> This is only a remark, not a critic,better not to breastfeed it into an
> upcoming
> problem.
>
> I'm not offering things of Hawking or Pirsig to make them conflict with your
> work
> If i read it closely, and follow all possible implications, the least i can
> say is that
> a number of good patterns is shining thrue in you work.
> You are a lot lesser conflicting these paths than you declare yourself.

[Mark]
The main reason I offer analogies from physics or other places is to
help relate what I see.  Such analogies should never be mistaken for
the real things, and often fall apart on detailed analysis.  I would
agree that Ham and I do share a lot, and differ mainly in perspective.
>
>
>>>Ham, quote " does the atheist Hawking mean--, etc"
> ----------------------------
[Adrie]
> If you are writing it like this , Ham, it sound like you are fighting the
> antichrist,the atheism in Hawking's approach, thinking you need to conflict
> him because of....,
> Personally i'll think Hawking is more of an apatheist then he is an atheist.
> I see no need to subscribe to his apo/thei conflict approach for you, but
> your work and approach can take the benefits of his insights on model
> dependent realism.

[Mark]
Well, if apatheist has anything to do with apathy this may be true.  I
would say that like most scientists wanting to sell books, the term
God is loosely used, and simply denotes the authors own conception of
what they think other's conception of God is.  In this way it is a
twice removed God, and such writings should be viewed in such a way.
Typically God is brought up in a provocative way to make an
ill-founded statement of some kind.  It usually doesn't mean anything,
but does get headlines.
>

> comment , Adrie.
>
> Mark is correct: technically spoken we are (Earth, our universe, our milky
> way)
> about exactly at the centrepoint of the observable universum.
>
> All observations, the red-shift,the age of the universum,the background
> radiation,
> the models,theory of relativity, etc are suppotive to the idea as well the
> observations that the Hubble volume is expanding around our milky way,but
> moving away from it in all directions very rapidly, the empty
> space between the galaxy's is expanding.

[Mark]
Here I was just playing with concepts to show that centrism has many
aspects.  Since we all seem to be fond of the metaphysics of physics,
I thought I would just throw that out.
>


>
>[Adrie]
> Something else grasped my attention.
> this;
> Ham , Quote
> "When it comes to experiencing reality, however, I would chuck the dark
> glasses and return to my 'prism analogy' in which pure, undifferentiated
> Value is converted to a band of discrete values that are experienced as the
> properties of being-in-the-world.  (I offer this with apologies to the
> quantum physicists who try so hard to make objective data out of sub-atomic
> phenomena beyond the range of human sensibility.)"

>[Adrie]
> -----------------------------------------------
> The last sentence.
> so many thing are outside our range of perceptive direct observable range.

[Mark]
What Ham does not seem to grasp is that things such as quantum
mechanics are metaphysics.  For such things the abstract functions of
math are used.  To validate the metaphysics, measurements are made,
which of course fit to the math since that is what is used to analyze
the measurements.  There is nothing beneath such a things, it is
simply creating a metaphysics which works.  The circularity of math to
predict math has been dealt with by many mathematicians.  Such a thing
results in the intuitionists v the (I guess) Platonists.  One side
says it is in our heads, the other side it exists outside of our
heads.  This differentiation between inside and outside is resolved
when we notice that both are the same thing.

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
> --
> 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
>