Rich, Ken, et al:
KEN (said previously):
I regard Quality as simply the driving force that resulted from the
formation of the universe. The inexorable trend toward the complete
dissapation that the universe is undergoing.
RICH:
Does this mean that Quality is "something" -other- than the universe
(spov's)? Do you mean DQ? Dissipation? Physicists/scientists DO NOT have a
clear idea about the future universe - open, closed or flat. Read any first
year astronomy textbook.
CURTIS:
IMHO, Reality and Quality are one and the same. We all know that matter is
almost completely made up of nothing at all ... perhaps if we had suffic-
iently good resolution to peer into the subatomic particles, we would find
nothing more than an infinitely regressing chain of quality acting upon
quality, acting on quality, etc. Furthermore, I believe that most of the
theories currently abounding on the subject of the origin of the universe
would fall down and be replaced by something completely different if studied
under the light of MoQ. Perhaps the Universe isn't expanding, instead we're
just elevating patterns of Quality from one dimention to the next... but
now I'm just speculating, so I should stop! ;-)
KEN:
In any case, quality is the driving force for the march toward complete
randomness. Quality is not reality. Reality is the result of Quality.
RICH:
Randomness? Dynamicity in the MOQ, perhaps.
CURTIS:
The view that the universe will eventually dissipate results from a SO way
of thinking. It resulted from wishful thinking coupled with massive extra-
polation. We have only witnessed a few milliseconds of time, and are essen-
tially making this assumption based on a single measurement of how things
are NOW.
KEN:
>When life came into being due to the increasing complexity and greater
>range of possibilities presented then a new force came into being in the
>universe.
RICH:
A more Dynamic pattern of experiential value than rocks, yes.
CURTIS:
But, if we change the scales and topologically project a rock into a
diffent phase-space, would we not see something completely different,
like a corporation or a frog? A dividing line between life and non-life
is made obsolete by the introduction of Quality. Yes, we can say that a
rock is not alive. But, if you were in the same phase-space as a rock, you
would have a different view.
KEN:
We have no assurance that we are the final
word in evolution.
RICH:
Of course not. Metaphysics seems to me to be the bridge between the
intellect and the next level (i.e. - MOQ connects both science and
mysticism).
CURTIS:
Evolution just doesn't care. While I firmly believe that there is a 'fifth'
level (or level n+4 as it should be called), I believe it should be seen as
just one link in the scheme of things, with levels dropping below
'inorganic' and levels rising above 'intellect', no end in sight. To call
us the 'final' level reeks of SO thinking, and is highly pretentious. In
essence, though, I agree with both of you.
KEN:
Whatever happens to us will
have to happen while we are in the present churning phase of the universe
because there will ultimately be not enough energy in clumps to support
life, at least as we know it.
RICH:
This is a ridiculously premature judgement. I'm only a backseat physicist,
but the drivers of our scientific train are groping in the dark.
CURTIS:
... because they are still hopelessly mired in SO thinking. When the focus
shifts to one which tries to understand MOQ at the same time as trying to
understand the physical universe, we will have a much clearer picture of
where we are heading. At the moment, we just don't stand a chance of seeing
what is really going on, because most of our meme pool contains SO memes.
RICH:
None of us are really mystics, I think. Except perhaps some of the lurkers,
who know how keep their traps from flapping. However, you might just piss
off Pirsig. What I would ask from you is to be a bit clearer about when you
are expressing your own ideas as blended with the MOQ, and when you are
trying to get at the essence of the MOQ itself. I've always enjoyed your
posts - this one left me wondering...
CURTIS:
I just love the DQ of this list! ;-)
KEN:
PPS-What happens to us if we are still around when the level of energy
falls appreciably in the universe?
RICH:
Our sun has another good few billion years of life-giving inorganic value to
emit towards our lovely little ball, here. Don't worry, my friend.
CURTIS:
Why not just transcend it?! ;-) Sorry, I'm not usually a mystic...
Comments, anyone?
Keep it real,
Curtis.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST