Hi Everyone:
As many of you know I’m a beauty nut. So it will come as no surprise
that I seek out quotes from noteworthy people about what role beauty
has played in their lives. One quote I came across the other day was
attributed to Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Princeton
Institute of Advanced Study. In answer to the question, “How can you
tell when something’s interesting?” Dyson replied:
“It’s a matter of aesthetics. I was trained as a mathematician. My tools
are mathematics, so if it’s elegant mathematics that’s all I care about,
and if it also happens to be useful, so much the better.”
That sort of response is dear to my heart. It immediately reminded me
of this passage from Lila:
“But the Metaphysics of Quality also says that Dynamic Quality—the
value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a
laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive
one—is another matter altogether.” (Chap.29)
Since Dyson is attuned to DQ (as are many other mathematicians and
scientists) I was curious if he’d written anything that might relate to the
MOQ. An quick internet search brought forth a speech he made on
receiving the Templeton Prize. In it he defines mind as “the capacity to
make choices” i.e., to evaluate. And surprisingly, according to Dyson,
this capacity to respond to values can be found in . . . well, let him tell
you himself:
“The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three
levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see
them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our
direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is
the universe as a whole.
“Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents
rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices
between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum
mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to
make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom.
“The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it
hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction
between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has
passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a
world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms
and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in
kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the
unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are
small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of
God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from
atoms and from God.
“This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is
compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the
experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this personal theology
is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is
consistent with scientific evidence. “
Those who have been on this site for awhile will recall the “Are atoms
aware?” discussions. It seemed to some of us that it was essential
that the answer be “Yes” if the MOQ was to hang together as a viable
explanation of reality. You can imagine my pleasure in finding a notable
physicist agreeing with the “Yes” answer as well as a number of
biologists (mentioned in previous posts) who support the “mind
everywhere” (panexperientialism) theory.
Another physicist who takes the “mind everywhere” view is David
Darling who has written, “The brain is needed to produce
consciousness, we assume. But the closer we look at this idea, the
more fanciful it appears.” He continues:
“Consciousness is not some side-effect, or epiphenomenon, of the
objective world. It is an integral, irreducible part of reality.
Consciousness is the subjective aspect of all things—the ever-
present’ mind’ of the universe.”
For values to make up the entire universe as Pirsig claims, the
existence of mind or consciousness or a “mental apparatus”
throughout seems crucial, for without “a capacity to make choices,”
values are meaningless.
We can never expect scientific evidence to support the MOQ because
values, by science’s own definition of itself, cannot say anything about
them. As Elephant has eloquently made plain, the essence of science
is “numericism,” based on “the assumption that reality is countable.” If
you can’t count it in some way, shape or form, science isn’t interested.
But it’s important that the MOQ “be consistent with the scientific
evidence” as a number of scientists indicate that indeed it is.
In a letter available on the MOQ site, Pirsig wrote:
"If Dynamic Quality were merely called "God" or "oneness" (scientists)
would have it shoved out of bounds without question. But they can't
shove Quality out of bounds. Mystic or not, they can't deny it exists.
(letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, August 17, 1997)
Now as further discoveries are made about man and nature, and the
explanatory weakness of “emergent” theory becomes more obvious to
all, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for scientists to shove mind out
of bounds. To my mind that makes the MOQ all the more convincing.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
