Glove and all interested 99 percenters,
Previous message:Ken:
> Driven by DQ every possibility was tried. Some of these results ended in
>a dead end when no further possibilities were available. Some of these
>results allowed interactions with the outputs from other QE and SQ
>interactions which generated further possibilities. In this way DQ creates
>and destroys. All the while driving the universe toward a state of greater
>complexity.
Glove: This is where I begin having a few problems. Perhaps Jonathan Marder
could better explain it than I as I am sure he's touched upon the subject
in
the past; the problem of protein folding. There is perhaps an infinite
number of ways that a protein can fold yet it seems to "know" which fold is
the correct way without having to try each and every possible permutation.
>From what little I understand of the problem, it seems that the
environment
has a direct influence on the folding of the protein; it is constrained
into
folding in just such a way as to be beneficial to its purpose.
If this is so, then your argument that Dynamic Quality drives static
quality
to try every possibility may be flawed. It might be better to say that
Dynamic Quality constrains static quality to its purpose?
Ken answers:
Glove, While I realize that this example is only one of many, many
possible similar situations I think that like arguments could be advanced
for the others.
If we allow that all of the atoms or moietys thereof are available in the
general environment it does not follow that protein molecules will result.
It is more probable that the environment of muscle or other protein
containing tissue of living organisms is the only place that will provide
the proper conditions to allow the correct folding of protein. This
environment is passed on from one generation to the next through egg and
sperm, or division or whatever the reproductive system is. This may well be
the, or one of the, restrictions whereby species differentiation is
maintained
I still maintain that protein generation is driven by the impetus of
DQacting on QEs to produce Static Quality muscle tissue in the proper
environment and that this is one of the ways that life is differentiated
from other life forms as well as from non-life.
Original message:
Ken:
>During the inorganic phase observation consisted of DQ driven QEs which
>produced SQ latches. Sentience was not present or necessary for the
>development of further complexity in the universe. Again, Sentience is not
>necessary for observation to occur. Observation simply means that further
>possibilities exist.
Glove: I do not exactly disagree with you here, nor can I agree. By the
nature of the way we perceive the Quality Event of our lives, I find it
impossible to state with certainty what happened before I became aware of
reality, or what will happen after that awareness ceases to be and the "I"
that I call me goes "back" to wherever it came from, Dynamic Quality if you
will. Yes, we can communicate unambiguously about the past and the future
when I was and will no longer be "here" but that suspends us in language,
as
Bohr once wrote.
Ken Answers:
I cannot get the quotes right but paraphrasing I believe that Pirsig says
that all we can experience is value. Substance is the result of value. By
that I think he means that everything that we believe to be true is
conditioned. It is only true according to the state of our understanding of
the universe and that anything that we believe presently is subject to
change with a deeper understanding. I think that is what he means when he
says that gravity is a belief. He simply means that our current
understanding and experience of gravity is based on the values we now hold
as a result of our current level of understanding and could be subject to
change with a deeper understanding. He is not saying that our experience of
gravity will change, merely that our understanding of it is subject to
change. In a sense Pirsig is also saying, along with Bohr, that we are
suspended in language, or preferably, understanding. I think that this is
the basis of his "Many Truths" idea. He is saying that since we do not have
a complete understanding of the workings of the universe then all of our
currently held values are conditional. At the moment we cannot be "certain"
about anything. We are being driven by DQ continually toward a deeper
understanding. Whether we will ever reach full understanding is doubtful.
As I believe, all of our "truths" are conditional but DQ is supplying the
force to drive us toward further "truths". We can discuss with confidence
our understanding of the universal "truths" with the proviso that we must
also be aware that these "truths" are conditional.Ken:
Original Message:
Ken:
> The levels emerged as DQ drove QEs to explore alll possibilities.
>Whether these results were a foregone conclusion is a good question. A
>similar question is: If the universe started over again with the same set
>of initial conditions would it wind up at the exact same spot that we
>occupy now. I don't know the answer to that. It would seem to make sense
>that it would. The reason that everything looks good to us as we look back
>on our understanding of the universe is because that universe has operated
>to produce us. It all looks good to us because it has led to us. I imagine
>that if we could ask every element and every life form in the universe if
>the development of the universe was all good they would all say yes for
>similar reasons.
Glove writes:
Wouldn't we have to answer the question "if all is good, what is it
better than?"
Ken answers:
If we look back on our understanding of the development of the universe
we can form a set of values that gives us a picture of our origins.
Obviously that process will look good to us because it produced us. I
suppose we could say that this process is better than one that would have
not produced us but then we wouldn't know the difference. All is good.
There is no better. Ken
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