Hi Roger and all,
> Jonathan wrote:
> "The difference between the random and non-random viewpoint is one of
> perception, and has no basis in the property of the gas. Thus, randomness
> cannot be considered an objective property of the whole system."
>
> Jonathan, allow me to explore this statement further and see where it
> leads.......
>
Please do. You make a lot of important deductions. Most of them I agree
with; however, I am going to be pedantic about disagreeing on a couple of
them.
> ARE PATTERNS 'OBJECTIVE'?
> This is a tough topic in the MOQ because it involves the terminology and
> baggage of the metaphysics it seeks to replace. 'Empirical' is a better
term
> in our philosophy.
Roger, you have raised a dilemma - the word "objective" has two different
meanings.
1. The "metaphysical" definition places objective properties entirely within
the independently existing object. This is logical positivism's definition.
2. The empirical definition would say that objective properties are those
properties universally (or near universally) held to be true. By this
definition falling in sh*t is an objectively bad thing. This sort of
objectivity finds its use in market surveys etc. Furthermore, by this
definition, Pirsig's Quality can often be quite objective.
ROGER
> In [JONATHAN'S] above quote, I would suggest a pattern could be considered
objective
> if it correlates with the properties of the gas.
I don't think this helps much. If we reject the first logical positivist
definition of objectivity, we should then add a couple of words toRoger's
statement: "a pattern could be considered objective if it IS BELIEVED TO
correlate with the properties of the gas".
This makes objectivity subject to belief ;-). This is okay by me, but it
means that "objectivity" is now very far from a primary metaphysical concept
implicit in SOM. By the logical positivist definition, this empirical type
of objectivity is now no longer . . . OBJECTIVE.
ROGER
> IS RANDOMNESS OBJECTIVE?
> ...
> Randomness is a low-information pattern that can be considered objective
or
> empirical.
Again, it depends on the definition of objectivity, but it's right on about
the "information" pattern.
How does one know whether or not some meaningless sequence of characters is
a coded message or a monkey typing on a keyboard? When one can identify the
source and it's intent, it is fine to regard the signal as information.
However, there is a danger of extracting "false" information, which is what
I believe that astrologers and palm readers do.
> SUMMARY
> A pattern is a model of reality that allows us to turn experience into a
> tool.
Again, I suggest a modification. The pattern allows us to REGISTER the
experience too. Without a pattern, you have nothing to register, and the
experience is lost - as if it never happened.
>It is essentially a data compression technique. The quality of a
> pattern is in its consistency, simplicity, informational content and
> agreement with experience. Randomness is a particular pattern with
extremely
> limited informational quality.
My modification: "Randomness is a descriptive pattern that denies
informational content".
It also denies Quality. Roger, suppose you were to say "Jonathan's ramblings
read like the random hammering of a monkey on a typewriter"? I hope this
makes the point.
ROGER
> Considering the intended audience, I basically agree with your quote, but
in
> in MOQese we could rephrase it as follows:
>
> "The difference between the random and non-random viewpoint is one of the
> quality.
Okay so far ...
> Intellectually,
and not just intellectually,
>it is of higher quality to identify patterns and to
> simplify our model of reality than it is to leave it random and
unpatterned,
> but only if this corresponds 'objectively' to the features being modeled.
Here I find the 'objectively' misplaced. The pattern must, by definition,
correspond to the features being modelled.
However, the pattern should also correspond to other beliefs/facts/patterns
held to be true.
> Hence, randomness and pattern can each be considered objective properties
of
> a model of reality."
Randomness as a valid pattern collapses as soon as any other pattern
emerges. Who else saw or read the Tom Stoppard play "Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead"; the play opens with them flipping a coin and it
coming up heads upteen times. What's the overwhelming verdict as to whether
or not the behaviour of their coin is random?
> Jonathan, let me know if you agree with my new definitions and with the
way I
> have rephrased (re-patterned) the issue.
Roger, it seems that despite appearances we are on the same wavelength.
Donny always used to remind us that philosophical statements should be
prefaced "It is as if ...". Similarly, I think that in a lot of your
definitions you should replace "is" with "is believed to".
I hope that this helps,
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:40 BST