Hi Jonathan and Folks
On 22 Mar 99, at 23:21, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> The next subject that has resurged is the definition of DQ.
> Horse (on DQ):
> > Q1) I'm happy with any of the following as they essentially say the
> > same thing:
> > Change (Horse)
> > Potential (Jonathan)
> > How things become (Magnus)>>>>>>
>
> Mary
> >Ok then, say change and strike the other 2....
>
> I think that "change" is insufficient, because it is a relative term.
> The position of the earth is constantly CHANGING, yet the earth follows
> a CONSTANT orbit around the sun. That apparent contradiction is one
> cornerstone of Newton's mechanics. My own definition and also Magnus's
> carry some implication of "realization".
So the position of the Earth constantly changes WRT the Sun. The
Sun's position constantly changes WRT the Galactic centre, which
constantly changes ........ But the CONSTANT is only an
approximation which relies on a given position of reference.
I agree that "change" doesn't say enough on its own but I would also
say the same the same about the other 2. Rogers take on it was
interesting:
On 21 Mar 99, at 11:14, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> Combined they make sense. But they don't obviously say the
> same thing....
So how about something like:
The potential for change which results in things becoming.
> Finally we have the direction of evolution - towards DQ or away from it?
I thought the idea was away from Static (not Dynamic) quality. At
least that's how I see it.
> DQ (as potential) can be realized, but there is no way to reverse that
> process.
> That can be regarded as both a philosophical statement and a statement
> of the second law of thermodynamics!
Doesn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics involve an increase in
entropy or "heat death". This would mean that evolution towards DQ
is also towards the ultimate Static Value. Which seems a bit odd!!
> To me, evolution "towards" or "away from" DQ makes no sense. Evolution
> is by definition a process of change from one set of static patterns to
> a new set of static patterns. The relationship between DQ and the
> direction of change is in the "potential difference" which determines
> which pattern is favoured.
A change in potential. Things Become.
So evolution is a continual changing away from one Static set of
patterns. If we say it's towards DQ then DQ must exist as some
state. To talk about a state implies a thing or set of things having a
state, which implies DQ is a thing. As above DQ could be considered
as "The potential for change which results in things becoming" which
makes more sense to me.
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST