[MD] "Could have acted differently" v. "the extent to which we perceive DQ"

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Horse]
Mathematics exists and I think you are being slightly disingenuous about this
as you know I am not referring to the purely "physical" or S/O world.

[Arlo]
Well but then you are arguing MY point (which I don't mind, of course). As I
said, in a MOQ what is "real" is what has "experiential value". Mathematics
"exists" by its experiential value.

This is why I adamantly maintain that "illusions" are the result of SOM
thinking, and that patterns of value in a MOQ are experientially real.

You didn't answer, so I ask again, of what possible benefit is it from a MOQ
perspective to say "everything except for DQ is an illusion"? Does that help us
navigate experience? Does that improve the way I ride my motorcycle or that I
can count on it to carry me from here to the pub?

[Horse]
God exists. Fairies exist. There is life after death.
If you believe that any of these are other than delusion then we have no 
common ground for discussion of the difference between illusion and delusion.

[Arlo]
God, fairies and "life after death" are patterns of value. Some are good, some
are not, some are better, some are worse. But you see, again, you are arguing
my point.

"God exists" is an existential claim. This is an illusion. Of course "God" or
any other "<insert word>" has no existential reality, that is a claim about
primacy. And I am NOT making nor defending this.

But the concept of "god" has very real empirical reality. It is NOT an
illusion, people experience this concept every day. It has altered human
activity, it has underscored countless works of art and music, it has
transformed entire civilizations (for better or worse is not my point). 

[Horse]
I think the answer to the above is that to the people that experienced the
bombs in Japan they were real as both DQ and SQ were involved. 

[Arlo]
I think this is a very problematic division, and I think it is laden with
subjectivism (only that which I have experienced is "real"). 

There is no doubt (as I mentioned in another thread) that there is a
distinction, as Peirce made (and James as DMB pointed out), between belief
fixed on empirical knowledge and belief fixed on authority, but I would not
call this distinction "real/illusion". Beliefs held via authority have very
real pragmatic consequences in the world, they alter our activity, they impact
us in very real ways.

[Horse]
This is the MoQ difference between reality and illusion.

[Arlo]
I disagree. And by this measure the MOQ is nothing more that a
soliptic/subjectivist view of the world.

I do not have to experience the inorganic patterns of value on the moon to
experience the intellectual patterns that describe the composition of moon
rocks. One is not "real" and one is not "illusion".