Hi Jonathan
> You say about Lao-Tzu, "he was wrong", because you think mathematics is
> excepted from what he talked about.
Well, if he spoke about intellectual patterns describing other types of
patterns (which I think he did), then he was correct. But in my view
of the MoQ, intellectual patterns *can* describe intellectual patterns
using a simple one-to-one mapping. And since I think mathematics is such
a thing, I also think his statement, if put into the MoQ's bigger picture,
was somewhat flawed.
> You also say that Goedel "misses the point", yet Goedel was talking
> specifically about mathematics.
Yes, but I was talking about a "description" of mathematics, not its
completeness.
> Do I take it that your version of the MoQ is incompatible with both the
> Tao and Goedel?
No, I'd say it's an extension of Tao, but not even comparable to Goedel's
theorem since it's not a metaphysics.
> MAGNUS
> <<<That's another reason why I want a quantum level, it takes us right
> back to
> a monism again.>>>
>
> I still don't see how. Let me ask a specific question of Magnus:
> Did the "quantum patterns" he talks about exist before the Big Bang?
In a sense, yes. But since time didn't exist "before" the Big Bang it's
not quite right to say "before". (Either way, I see it's pointless to say
this to you since you disagree that time is removed together with the
inorganic level.)
> I think that the boundaries between the levels are artificial, but not
> arbitrary.
Perhaps this is the biggest difference between our views. I don't see
how you can enjoy trying to construct an "artificial" division of reality.
You're often referring to the lower three levels as the levels where
"things happen". Don't you ever wonder what is governing the events
that according to you "just happen"?
Anyway, I would *not* enjoy one moment of merely trying to construct an
artificial division of reality. I'm trying to *find* the division that's
already there. That is, I'm trying to find the metaphysics of our reality.
> Some patterns are easy to classify, but some are too close to
> the boundary. Pirsig calls such a pattern a platypus. He doesn't provide
> any examples of Platypi arising within the MoQ, but we seem to find
> plenty of them.
I also found plenty of them before I straightened out my view of the MoQ.
See my essay.
> I do not see how introducing new levels reduces redundancy - quite the
> opposite.
A quantum level doesn't reduce, nor introduce, redundancy. But it
reduces dualities, which is just as bad. Einstein once said:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
> MAGNUS
> >I'm trying to make the MoQ into a coherent, universal metaphysics, not
> needing
> >biological humans to function.
>
> And what would the point of that be? To reduce the MoQ to logical
> positivism?
No, logical positivism is valueless and DQ-less.
> What does "Man is the Measure" mean to you Magnus?
I'm thinking MoM, Metaphysics of Mankind. A human-centric metaphysics
not well suited for neither the future nor the universal history before
mankind came along.
> I've no problem with using quantum mechanics for explaining the
> behaviour of energy and matter.
> I just don't see why that makes it a separate metaphysical level. (BTW,
> I disagree that it removes time).
It makes it into a separate metaphysical level because all the values
of the inorganic level is gone (G-O-N-E) when entering the quantum realm.
Mass, electromagnetism, gravity, space, the so called "universal" speed
limit c and I say it again, time.
> Furthermore, I find it ironic that you choose to underpin your
> metaphysics with a theory you so clearly do not understand.
Didn't you say the other day that you're not an authority in this field
either? So forgive me but I think I'll await a somewhat more elaborate
rejection than, "you don't understand".
Magnus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:46 BST