[MD] Through a glass darkly

[Ham Priday]

Hi Adrie --


> 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

My Adobe pdf program was unable to download the text for the link you 
supplied.  However, here is Wiki's definition of the Weak and Strong 
Anthropic Principles in question:

"In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical 
argument that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with 
the conscious life that observes it.  Some proponents of the argument reason 
that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical 
constants necessary to accommodate conscious life.  As a result, they 
believe that the fact that the Universe's fundamental constants are within 
the narrow range thought to allow life is not remarkable.

"The Strong Anthropic principle as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see 
Variants) states that this is all the case because conscious life, in some 
sense, needed to exist.  Critics argue in favor of a Weak Anthropic 
principle, which states that the universe's fine tuning amounts to Selection 
bias; in an infinite universe, some worlds might evolve conscious life. 
Douglas Adams used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, 
since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them 
perfectly (in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly)."

It is clear now that Hawking is using the Weak Anthropic Principle to 
support his argument that "the universe's fine tuning amounts to Selection 
bias"; in other words, that "in an infinite universe" or (as he has 
postulated, "an infinity of universes") some world might evolve conscious 
life."   This was all I needed to know, Adrie.

The fact that the document you referred to is listed under the search term 
"Dynamic Quality in motion" is of no sgnificance to me.  DQ is unique to 
Pirsig's MoQ, and I doubt that astro-physicists associate this philosophy 
with their measurements and calculations.  What Google is picking up are 
theorems and titles relating to "dynamics" and "motion", not "dynamic 
Quality."  Also, the term "anthropocentrism", which I used correctly,
does not imply or require that man is physically located at the center of 
the universe, but rather that he is the central figure (i.e., most 
significant agency) in existence.

> 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.

It is not surprising than man should see himself as the literal center of 
reality, since it is he who actualizes the objective otherness that 
surrounds him.  My point is simply that in the absence of man's awareness, 
there IS NO universe.  I define cognizant awareness as Sensibility and 
insentient being as Otherness.  Given Pirsig's precept that what is not 
valued doesn't exist, and understanding that "being" is actualized Value, 
Existence (the appearance of differentiated being) is co-dependent on the 
Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy.

> 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.

I don't know what "a halting universe or metaphysics" is intended to mean, 
unless it is my allusion to a "timeless" Reality that is immutable to 
change.  If you do not allow for an Absolute Source, you have no 
metaphysical foundation for physical (experiential) reality.

Your attempt to help me construct a valid "metaphysical model" is 
appreciated, Adrie.  Unfortunately, what you propose -- "Quality (Value) in 
motion" -- is inconsistent with my philosophy of Essence.

I see that you have posted a follow-up message, which (so as not to exceed 
the prescribed space limit) I shall respond to presently.

Still essentially yours,
Ham