Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 06:16:02 EST
Subject: Metaphysical Musings



--part1_141.cb1677b.2ba070f2_boundary
Content-Language: en



Hi Rene,



As Richard Sansom wrote to me recently regarding the Baggot quote below:



I have pondered for some time the absence of philosophy in the meanings of

quantum theory (and Godel=E2=80=99s proof,) as well as the absence of quantum theory

and Godel in philosophy. It seems to me that

there is a meeting ground, or should be, for these disciplines. Maybe:

PHILOSCIENCE?





Baggot writes:



"Most undergraduate courses on quantum theory never touch on the theory=E2=80=99s

profound conceptual problems. This is because the theory brings us right back

to some of the central questions of philosophy and, as we know, there is no

room for philosophy in a modern science degree. I find this an absurd

situation. It is my opinion.....that quantum theory IS philosophy. Oh, we can

dress it up in grand phrases littered with jargon -- state vector, hermetian

operator, Hilbert space, projection amplitude, and so on -- we can make it

all very mechanistic and mathematical and scientific, but this does not

completely hide the truth. Behind the formalism must be an interpretation,

and the interpretation is pure philosophy."

(Jim Baggott -- The Meaning of Quantum Theory, Oxford University Press, 1991)

Maybe this is the common ground where logician and metaphysician can parlay?

In spite of my anti-Heideggerian stance, unlike Parmenides, I do believe that
the "concepts" of "nothing" and "Being" are
unworthy of discussion, and in fact I have a book by a popular science writer
called John. D. Barrow on the subject of zero and nothing.
The sad fact is however that most analytical thinkers, [and I am
generalising] seem to ignore those areas of human investigation
which are usually termed metaphysical, and I think it is to their great loss,
and to the loss of philosophy in general..
Subjects [variables] such as time, cause, change, physical laws, reactions,
etc., are part and parcel of every scientists
tool-kit, but for them, [and to an extent for me too] the questions are all
hows rather than whys?
Which brings me to the question of "meaning."  If one looks in most
dictionaries for the word: "meaning" one gets long lists of synonyms like:
connotation, denotation, gist, implication, import, intension, nuance,
referent, sense, significance, symbolisation - the only word that is missing
is REASON.  So when people ask the question: "Why are we here?" or "What is
the reason behind existence?"  or "What is the meaning of life?" they are
mislead, for "meaning" and "reason" are not correlatives.

 For me "meaning" is that which is indicated by signs and nothing more.

The signs can be the finger signals or gestures of the deaf, or  the
implications which are provided and explained using my native language
or the languages of others that I may know with varying degrees of skill.
Meaning is conveyed in the colours of traffic lights and the
warning noises of klaxons and fire-alarm bells.  Meaning in relation to human
moods, feelings and beliefs can be found in poetry and music, and the plastic
arts, and in  the red sky at night which portents a nice day tomorrow, or the
lowering of the barometric pressure, which for the mariner means a storm is
approaching.  Meaning can be conveyed in the expression in somebody's face,
or the movements of an animal, which we interpret as benign or threatening,
etc.
Meaning  can be found for most woman in having a child, or being a member of
a loving partnership, as well as enjoying a satisfying career.
In all the above areas one can find meaning if one understands how to read
the signs, but for me there is no meaning in nature itself [the cosmos] for
there are no signs, for there is nothing to be signified.  A sign, or a
natural activity which we interpret as a "sign" or the evidence of change,
[the black  boiling clouds that tell of a storm] are only there if there is
going to be a storm, if the weather systems are mild then there will be no
boiling clouds, but the cosmos exists - it does not not exist - there are
signs which point the meaning of the cosmos.  The only "signs" which point
and purport to  betoken the "meaning" or "reason"  of that which exists, are
those provided by others - others who claim to have seen these signs, which
have not been "revealed" to others. Many people find their version of
"meaning" by  accepting what these people  say - Moses, Jesus, Mohammed,
Buddha, etc.,  and believe what is written by them, or by their followers in
their books =E2=80=94 others do not.



Where does that leave those "why-less" ones that do not believe these people?
 Does it leave them without "meaning" in their lives? They would answer "no,"
 for if they do not believe that there is any meaning in the cosmos in the
first place, then it is impossible for them to feel that the cosmos is
meaningless, for if there is no such thing as cosmic-meaning, there can be no
lack of it. For them the cosmos exists as it exists, and it is impossible for
it to have existed in any other way - for if it was possible - it would have
happened. There can be no lack of that which does not exist - neither can
there be a lack of that which does exist - for if it exists  - it exists and
is not lacking or missing.  There may be a lack of anti-AIDS drugs in Africa,
but it is a human lack in relation to a human need -  not a "existential"
lack.




regards,

Jud.

<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A>
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com</A>

--part1_141.cb1677b.2ba070f2_boundary

HTML VERSION: