Hello Roger, hi all,
While thinking about the 'systems'-concept, I came to think again about the
question, what makes a good theory. During the search in my archives, I found
lots of intersting posts that all deal more or less with this question, of which
I may quote afterwards. It is really a pity, that one forget about so many of
them only for the reason, that they were not 'touching' in that very moment,
though somehow all what one has been read returns someday or sometime, I
believe.
Roger wrote (sorry no date)
> What the
> Metaphysics of Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines
> within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of
> them without contradiction. (Lila, Chap. 11)
To consider any form of information as also being subject to evolution, I may
say, that a good theory should reduce as much as possible those 'loose ends'. It
should find a structure, where as many fields of science, religion, mystical, in
general as many elements can have their place. It aims at solving the puzzle of
a given number of elements or any sort of sub-system with as less parts as
possible left.
Is that a correct generalization of what you said above, Roger?
> The only reasonable division that I can make between intellect and social is
> to look at the values, attractors and evolutionary pressures that distinguish
> the two. Intellectual patterns are ideas or concepts that are evaluated
> based on the rules of logic, math and science. Roughly, these are:
>
> 1) Consistency -- with experience, within the theory and with other theories,
> 2) Simplicity,
> 3) Explanatory power,
> 4) Predictiveness, and
> 5) Falsifiability
>
> You could also probably add measurability and 'objectivity', with the latter
> term relating to the relative lack of social (non-intellectual) interference.
> 1)Consistency
Yes sure, this aspect is very important, BTW do you think these criteria differ
from each other concerning importance, or are they of 'equal weight'? You may
object now, that a good theory HAS to fulfil EVERY criteria. Certainly, but
didn't we found, that 'absoluteness' is hard to achieve if not even impossible?
Now, that is the reason that I consider some criteria more important than others
in order to come to something practical in a tolerable period of time.
Consistency is, in my opinion, the overwhelming criteria at all based on my
personal knowledge today. The reason is, that obviously for a theory enfolding
every element of human beings all global knowledge - once it is achieved - there
is nothing (no alternative theory) left to be compared to. Of what use would be
a rivaling theory, that is of great simplicity, but unfortunately lacks of
consistency? For example of what use is the 'world-formula' (the one the worlds
physicists are searching for), that lacks unfortunatly completely of almost
everything that has to do with fields of human sciences, not to mention religion
or arts?
I guess they are doing a great job those physicists, and each of those is at
least five times more intelligent as I am, no doubt, but even if this
'world-formula' consists of only 3 variables (f.e :-) ) and everybody would
agree this being the most 'simple' and astonishing formular ever have been heard
of, what would it be worth?
> 2) Simplicity,
> 3) Explanatory power
They both have something to do with aesthetics at last, am I right? Me
personally, I love those wonderful, amazing, ingenious abstractions,
descriptions or metaphors that is, first of all for the reason that my memory is
bad and so, logical models has the best chance to 'survive' in my mind.
Presumably for most of the people this is at least 'quite' important, because
none is able to store a 'copy' of the world. But is it a cogent logical
conclusion, that a theory that is of great 'simplicity' and 'explanatory power'
to a HUMAN BEING, is also the one with the highest validity?
To avoid misunderstandings, that is the aim of most of the people on this world
(who deals upon those questions), me included - except the mysticals perhaps -
to find the point where all those 'loose ends' end? (Sorry I lost my track a
bit!)
Now the most valid 'theory' - although it is wrong to use 'theory' like I do now
- is one that gives you a perfect 'copy' of all relevant intervaluations
existing in ONE moment! You may object, that it is then no longer a 'theory'.
That's right, but it is a perfect copy. And you go on, that this copy is of
really no practical use. That's also right! No living human being can make any
use of it, because it is far beyond powers of imagination. Only if 'totality'
(or entity or whatever!) could think, it would be able to imagine 'copy of
totality', perhaps.
But what I really miss as a criteria for a good 'theory' is this:
This perfect copy of totality would at least be CONSISTENT in itself and
furthermore only valid for this very moment, i.e. it would be the perfect
understanding ONLY for this moment of everything that exists. A moment later it
is no more valid! Why, how could that be?
Indeed, concerning a mechanistically theory of the world, this perfect
understanding is valid until eternity (...tic,toc,tic,toc,....;-) ) Even if we
would assume the only reason not being able to understand is, that we only
cannot observe due to limited possibities of observation and that we only cannot
evaluate due to limited powers of computing, we still could state that it would
be theoretically possible to do so! The perfect copy of STATIC quality
(multiple, if you prefer) And where is....? AHHHH!
There is no DYNAMIC QUALITY whatsoever. Not the slightest particle of it! But
due to our belief MoQ being the better theory, it has to be there. What would be
Pirsigs MoQ without DQ? As far as I'm concerned, I consider it to be the heart
of Pirsigs MoQ!
That leads me to Nr.4) and 5)
> 4) Predictiveness, and
> 5) Falsifiability
I must say I do not quite know, if these aspects (i.e. this post of yours) are
still the momentary consensus, but those two, at least 4) is incompatible with
DQ. I mean, if asking which one of those two we should drop, there would be not
much consideration (except Struan perhaps?!)
And what about 5)Falsifiability?
(Isn't it verifiability? - Falsifiability for those theories we wish to kick
out,isn't it?)
If I remember correctly, there has been discussed the 'Goedel-theorem' and
although being really bad in math since ever (This is going to be my last exam,
presumably ;-) ) it deals upon 'final provability'?! That is what I used to
call, the 'primary nail' to hang your theory at, many (?) month ago. And when
you finally found your 'big theory' (truely no sarcasm!), to what will you
falsify or verify another theory? It doesn't work!
Verifiability/Falsifiability is important while building the big theory out of
small or partial theories. So in short, we do need this on our way.
All this putting to the extreme helps me to find not only the major aspects vs
minor aspects, but also it sharpens the view, for what is missing.
Alas,I cannot say more than "I miss DQ in this recipe", I must admit.
Abstract:
---------
I consider consistency to be the major criteria, for in case if we are heading
for a all-enfolding theory we need consistency as the goal (What cannot be
reached of course)
We need a nail to hang on, which we might call quality?!
We need something that includes the force of evolution (DQ), what drives all
this forward. It could be same as the 'nail'; who knows?
We need verifiability to find our way as a kind of compass.
We do need 'predictiveness' as well, but this is also a kind of compass, which
is important as long as our goal is far away. Once our goal gets in 'sight' we
should throw it away, because using it then is even worse than
beneficial.(Compass of an airplane near to the magnetic northpole)
Predictiveness is the 'extrapolation of linearized reality', which is not very
exact, because reality gets first 'linearized' and then 'extrapolated'. In
technical terms that is 'failure-multiplication' and is considered worse the
earlier it happens. So 'predictiveness' is not as useful as 'verifiability'
Simplicity and explantory power, well that is for all of us the guideline. But
it is more a WISH that EVERYTHING could be reduced to a simple abstraction,
because very MUCH is explainable by means of models, that symbolize (somehow)
reality. But to remind you of the above, the reason maybe human beings reasoning
as 'sucess-guarantee' compared to other creatures (so one more dimension).
And another thought about 'Simplicity' and 'explantory power': First we make
reality easier to handle by means of 'inducing' (also idealizing thus
linearizing reality) and once we have found those inductions, we apply them on
our environment again to form it as we wish. When we do this 'applying'
(deducing) we have to 'fill up' again (partially only, otherwise our reasoning
wouldn't have lead us to where we are) what has been lost while 'inducing'.
In short: The more 'simplicity' the less 'reality'
and the more 'reality' the less 'practicability'
(Sorry it is not a very abstract abstract!)
Thanks for your patience; this is has become much more than I intended to
write,hoping it is not to confusing. It is no recipe at all, but much more
intended to give impulse.
Wish you all well,
So long, JoVo
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 - 16:00:51 BST