[MD] Through a glass darkly

Sat Feb 19 13:58:23 PST 2011

Hi Ham.

I'v must have missed it in the early roll-out of your presentation here,but
i'll realise myself now that you made an early mistake on the weak Anthropic
principle, because you are probably hashing the term with Anthropocentrism-!
There is a world of difference between the two terms, like entropy/antropy,
they only differ slightly in writing but are completely different.
I can see what the mistake is now
You tought that Hawking is conflicting your anthropocentrism, and that i'v
offered
this piece of Hawking to prank you a little bit.

no-,I'v presented it because of his model dependent realism.
The weak antropic principle(physiks) has nothing to do with
anthropocentrism.
There was a second reason as to why i presented it, and a third.

This is the walk i'v made to find it, to try to help you out with your model
a bit.
I'll give you my search term for the google prompt, so pay attention now.

DYNAMIC QUALITY IN MOTION

This generated a number of hits, and the pdf i was looking for was among
them in the first pages, i was aware of the existence of the document, the
title and the content up front , i knew this from a friend/physician.

i'm referring to this document, and your position on anthropocentrism in
regard of what i stated in the following sentence.
Quote myself
"Very strange , and remarkable, if one take's anthropocentrism and hold it
againt the light,it is about as congruent a possible with the idea of our
central place , technically spoken, in the universe."

If you like a good piece on this cental theme.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0001/0001428v1.pdf

Okay , so this piece is on the internet under the search term dynamic
quality in
motion.my friend attended me on it, because he is aware of my search for
value's, and patterns of value.

What the document is saying in general is that the universe is not only
dynamical,
but also that all motions in the universe show a tendency towards dynamic
quality.( the will to form a pattern that lies outside the range of
coincidence)
REMARKABLE, is the fact that all observed galaxy's show a pattern of this
dynamical quality in motion, and!! all individual planets, stars , clusters,
etc,
are showing a physikal tendency in trying to cluster together,searching
eachothers company, in spite of gravity in the near surroundings!!
The value of dynamism, dynamic quality seems to rank higher than gravity
does.
Weird , strange and very surprising , but not if we are all aware of
dynamic quality long before this is(now) discovered as a pattern in the
universes.

This is of the utmost importance.

The document shows another thing, nl,the tendency of the expanding universe
away from our milky way,showing truly in fact , that we are located at the
centre
of the Hubble-volume.
This is supportive to the idea you advokate on anthropocentrism, they seem
congruent.(however this is no proof of causual bond)

The other link i'v presented was to offer the dark glass analogy/variant
David
Misialowski (very good American author) was presenting on this webforum
http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/reviews/the-grand-design-by-stephen-hawking-r124

very good forum, and Misialowski named us as part of the glass darkly.
This was to support what Mr Buchanan presented earlier on in the
thread(opening).

----------------------
To come back on your last posting.
Quote , Ham.

"Frankly, Adrie, I'm tired of dealing with specious details concerning
physical phenomena and their evolutionary dynamics."

comment  Adrie.
strange, because as well evolutionary dynamics, physikal phenomena AND
DYNAMIC QUALITY IN MOTION are to be taken as supportive for the idea of
anthropocentrism, after all,anthropocentrism without dynamism in the core of
the niche, will produce a dead dog.

You can always concider this.

Anthropocentrism in motion---
Dynamic quality in anthropocentrism--
The quality of a dynamical anthropocentrism--, these are only some examples
to think about,...best of both worlds.

Now , to move on,..
Ham,(quote) out of context.

 "Let's face it: this is not an issue that objective science can resolve.
 It won't be solved by coming up with more sub-atomic particles or new wave
theories that can be set into a mathematical equation.  The solution to this
perennial problem will only be found in a properly formulated metaphysical
model.  And, even then, there will be no way to objectively confirm the
theory."

-------------------------------------------------------------------
(Adrie)
I think there is no danger in digging in the toolbox of nature or the
universe,or theism, or philosophy

allow me to refrase it like i would write this.

The possible solution to these perennial questions need to be searched in
a properly formulated physikal model, and subsequentaly, need to be
congruent with a properly formulated metaphysikal model.,this will generate
the proof for the value of the model, it needs to be a dynamical model,...a
halting universe or
a halting metaphysiks is not an option.

Okay, i will leave this for now,I think you are truly tired sometimes.

To clarify on apatheism.

An apatheist is somebody who is apathic as well towards religion as towards
the lack of religion, theism doesn't bother the apatheist much,nor the
question about theism.
Its the modern variant of agnosticism, in fact, streetwise talk mainly.

so it answered your question in advance, embedded here.(Quote Ham.)
"Forgive me for injecting what may appear to be a "theistic" thought here,
but it is my suspicion that we were "not meant to know" the truth about
reality.  I say this because to know the Truth is to surrender our Freedom
as the "existential agent" of reality.  That freedom has more value for
mankind than all the factual knowledge Science is capable of offering us."

ps , finally, Flemish is not very strict on spelling, depending on the
formal form or
non-formal we can vary alot,mainly because of the difference in French/Dutch
spoken here(and german)3 languages,..strange but because of 3 separate
governments, we do not always follow changes in new spelling developments,
and mostly we are allowed to keep transitional changes for a very long time

some examples in Flemish(about the same as Dutch)

entropy/enthropy
antropy/anthropy

flemish now,
entropie/enthropie
antropie/anthropie, so i tought this was allowed in english too, but i can
see now that the transitional allowance is ours here.I will pay attention to
it.

very funny actually, i never use spelling control in documents or word
formats or pdf's, mainly to make it an obligation for myself to run a very
sharp fast curve uphill in learning English, dictionary usage will slow me
down.

Greetzz is correct here , but also slang for naked Greet(Greet =female name)
ZZ is slang for bare naked in colorcoding in fact.

Sayonara.
Adrie

2011/2/19 Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>

>
> Greetzz, Adrie --
>
> (I take it "Greetzz" is a Flemish salutation, too.)
>
> [Adrie re: his query on Ant[h]ropocentrism]:
>
>
>
>  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.
>>
> [snip]
>
>> (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 have no desire to create a conflict ...heaven knows we already have more
> of them than I can address.
> And the "pyramid" paradigm doesn't appeal to me as a cosmological model.  I
> am not qualified to critique the astro-physicists' view of the universe.
> What intrigued me about Hawking's statement is that he seems to be using the
> "weak anthropic principle ...that we must observe a universe whose
> properties are consistent with
> our existence" to support his own "probability" theory of creation.  In
> striving to explain "fine-tuned" reality as a cause-and-effect process,
> physicists typically resort to "multi-universes" and/or probability theory
> to avoid the fundamental issue of a Creator or primary source.
>
>  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 supportive 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.
>>
>
> Frankly, Adrie, I'm tired of dealing with specious details concerning
> physical phenomena and their evolutionary dynamics.  Let's face it: this is
> not an issue that objective science can resolve.  It won't be solved by
> coming up with more sub-atomic particles or new wave theories that can be
> set into a mathematical equation.  The solution to this perennial problem
> will only be found in a properly formulated metaphysical model.  And, even
> then, there will be no way to objectively confirm the theory.
>
>
>  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.
>>
>> Try this one, model dependent realism.
>>
>> You Ham, are trying to develop a model dependent realism of your own,
>> your theory's here displayed, 'essence',' essentialism', etc, if Hawking
>> and
>> Pirsig are allowed the valid and valuable approach of model dependent
>> realism,
>> i can see no reason as to why you should not develop your own model.
>>
>> Your model is not the top of the pyramid trying to overrule the MOQ, but
>> to be seen as an entity(for now) that locates and poses itself still at
>> the
>> intellectual level (a projected individual treshold antropho/theocentrism
>> induced)
>>
>> Be carefull with the implications, a reactive devaluation-based system
>> will
>> fail the test of common sense.
>>
>
> I appreciate the caviat, Adrie, and I realize that my hypothesis is often
> regarded as "uncommon" sense.  Indeed, if common sense could provide the
> solution to our enigma, we would have had it by now.  Forgive me for
> injecting what may appear to be a "theistic" thought here, but it is my
> suspicion that we were "not meant to know" the truth about reality.  I say
> this because to know the Truth is to surrender our Freedom as the
> "existential agent" of reality.  That freedom has more value for mankind
> than all the factual knowledge Science is capable of offering us.
>
>
>  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.
>>
> [snip]
>
>> Is it a good thing if i reverse your sentence toward
>> religion/theism/creationism?
>>
>> Can you prove their existence objectively?....and reframe it in the
>> sentence's
>> context? (no need to answer it)
>>
>
> Unlike scientific theories, metaphysical hypotheses cannot be made subject
> to "fallibility testing", and I would be foolish to claim empirical proof
> for my ontology.   What is an "apatheist", by the way?  (The word isn't
> listed in my English dictionary.)   Call me a "model-dependent idealist" if
> you like; I suppose it's as good as any label that can be applied to a
> metaphysicist.
>
> Unfortunately, the truth about Reality is that it's no more "common" than
> it is "fair".  So if you want to hold a philosophical discourse with me, I'm
> afraid you'll have to deal with the uncommon sense of my conclusions.
> Thanks for your insights, Adrie.  Despite my ignorance of the Belgian
> language, I do appreciate the sharpness of your intellect.
>
> Essentially speaking,
>
> Ham
>
>
> 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