ROG AGREES EMPHATICALLY WITH CURTIS
Hi Curtis,
>ROGER WROTE:
>I wouldn't say I disagree yet. Let's dig into quantum interpretation and
>the MOQ. My only warning is that I disagree fundamentally with reductionist
>approaches that subatomic relationships are representative of higher level
>interrelationships.
>
>CURTIS:
>I disagree with you, Rog. Perhaps you need to reconsider how you percieve
>the MOQ. The MOQ says a lot of stuff, and we have the good Pirsig to thank
>for that! [Thanks!] But nobody's perfect, and we should take it as a given
>that the MoQ will be dynamic, too. It will evolve. I regard the MoQ as a set
>of observations about evolution ocurring within a complex system in *any*
>phase-space. A phase-space is any place where variables can interact. Now,
>in this light, can you say that subatomic particles are not as much
>variables
>inhabiting a phase-space as the stock market or your Aunt Thelma's
>stockings?
>The specific methods employed by a successful 'variable' cannot be trans-
>ferred between levels of Quality -- they have to be considered in their own
>phase-space -- but in general, the broad rules defined by MoQ are applicable
>to every level.
ROG:
With your explanation and caveats I agree emphatically.
Later Dude,
Rog
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