Hi Horse and Squad
Apologies for not responding, I've been buried in work for a few weeks.
I'm not very up to date on the development on this topic but I'll answer
this one anyway.
Horse wrote:
> Magnus:
> > The answer to the question,
> > - How can anything become?
>
> Hopefuly I haven't misinterpreted your post when I assume that the answer to the
> question "How can anything become?" is DQ. If this is the case then it still
> doesn't say a lot ABOUT how DQ relates to how things become, just that they
> do. If we're trying to form some sort of explanation to those unfamiliar with the
> MoQ when they ask about DQ then this is a bit on the cryptic side. I'm not trying
> to pick an argument here (honest!) just trying to get a bit more elaboration.
See what you mean, you have to know what it means to see what it means.
A very short elaboration would be "How can anything truly new become?".
The long version goes something like:
Without DQ, only existing static patterns would be able to exist. A drop of
water dropped on the same spot on a mountainside would follow exactly the same
route down the hill every time. A dividing cell would result in two identical
cells, no mutations would ever occur. Only old and rational thoughts would be
thought. Deduction could of course be used to create formerly unthought thoughts,
but such thoughts are not truly new, there's nothing creative about them.
DQ makes truly new patterns possible. DQ can cause a very probable chemical
reaction to come out somewhat different than usual and form a truly new type
of molecule. DQ can cause a cell division to make a slightly different kind
of cell, and DQ can inspire people to think completely new and unforeseen
thoughts.
Then you went on with a very interesting piece about inference, reduction and
complex systems. You wrote:
> The phrase"The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is anathema to many
> (though not all) within science as it implies that when all the constituents of a
> system are removed, something else remains. That something could be dynamic
> quality
I agree, but I think there's more to it. A complex system is more dynamic than
its parts, and the reason is that the system is a social pattern. The whole is
greater than the sum of its parts, partly because of the DQ, but mostly because
of the social pattern.
I read the piece again and found:
> the Santa Fe Institute
> for Complex Studies is a good place to start. Why do simple systems evolve into
> complex systems? There is no _objective_ reason why this should occur and yet
> the evidence in support of these phenomena is available in abundance.
Brilliant approach! Everybody is surprised but why should we? Humans are
complex systems evolved from simple ones, so we wouldn't even be here if that
wasn't true. It's actually another incarnation of the chemistry professor
platypus in Lila but scientifically more observable which makes it more
probable to raise some SOM eyebrowses.
> On a closing note I think it is possible that DQ is being argued over so much
> because, unlike SQ, there has never been any attempt to divide DQ. There seems
> to be an assumption that there is only one angle to DQ, which I think is incorrect.
> I know this isn't going to make me Mr Popular but I would suggest that an initial
> division would be into Contributive and Formative DQ. The former is the
> recognition of the new whilst the latter is responsible for its creation.
Of course I can't agree with you all the way, how would that look? :)
I would scrap the first, contributive version. You wrote "recognition of the new",
maybe I'm picking words but I'd call that "failure to recognize the known". When
this failure is realised, DQ is involved in creating a new compartment for the
unknown pattern to put it in.
Magnus
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST