DMB writes that the notion that the patterns / static quality are created
subjectively is the mark of the solipsist.
I have to defend the notion that many of the patterns that humans are
interested in are in fact subjective-based, (e.g. "objects", "events",
"distances", "durations", etc.,), yet maintain that "reality" is not
entirely the product of subjectivity. I can do so by resort to the notion
that there exists 'something' objective, without having to claim to be able
to define it.
That 'something' may well be "Quality" in Pirsig's book, or "Information" in
my book, or indeed "God" in someone else's book; it doesn't actually matter.
As long as one has the fundamental notion that 'something' exists outside
the 'known' universe, then one's cosmology can stand up. In fact, it was
only with the advent of Newtonian science that it seemed as though we could
do without that 'something' outside, by explaining the Universe entirely in
terms of cause-and-effect, as a 'machine'. In the event, the, 'clockwork
universe', or the 'electric universe' models have failed to provide a fully
inclusive cosmology.
So we have Pirsig.
I still maintain that the patterns we (humans) perceive are those which are
of the 'scale' which favour our survival; thus events too fast for us to
react to, (eg motion of subatomic particles, speeding bullet, etc) or indeed
too SLOW (eg many ongoing geological changes such as tectonic movement
[excluding earthquakes, of course]), and objects too large or too
small...etc. etc. - are 'imperceptible' to us via our 'standard equipment'
(i.e. -without our special perceptual add-ons that we have developed in the
last few hundred yeard, such as telescopes, etc). In this sense, the
patterns we can perceive are certainly circumscribed by our physiological
make-up, and in the same way the three dimensions we 'know' may well be
represented by a particular layer of neurons in the hippocampus (yet in
geometry, apparently, the primacy of euclidean '3-dimensions' is by no means
a 'given').
Likewise the notion of random patterns; I confess I'm a little foggy on
this - isn't the notion of random-ness a product of the 'scale' of
conceptualising?
I said in an earlier post that 'what is texture to us is terrain to an
nt' - now pull back further. Texture becomes something else, something
homogenous - isn't that what we mean by random, that homogeneity
(:apparently stochastic layout) - the absence of pattern. And isn't that the
product ENTIRELY of the subjective viewing scale?
In fact, this absence of information (as someone has just touched on) is not
'no information at all' -it's another class of information, and valuable as
such.
So, is there actually any such thing in the universe as an area or period of
truly random layout, at every possible viewing scale that we could conceive?
or have i missed something?
regards,
ppl
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