From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Jan 03 2005 - 23:47:44 GMT
Leif,
I'm glad you asked.
I did mean that.
ie Physics (by definition of what physics is) can be used to describe all
processes in the real world.
Or rather it could if we knew how - but physics (like anything) is an
incomplete "open" science.
(NB I'm using can / could, not does / will / should.)
However even if it were complete, it would probably remain pretty useless
for describing higher level phenomena.
So as you say, somewhere behind every "thought" is some pattern of
electro-chemical (or other quantum or even lower level as yet poorly
understood) physical phenomena (in however many diensions of space-time as
exist). But they are likely to be immensely complex comprising vast numbers
of individual component phenomena, that modelling anything real that way
would be absurdly impractical. But that is not ALL a thought is. Emergent
from all that complexity are statistics, tendencies and patterns we model
with all the other useful metaphors we use - recollecting, believing,
imagining, etc.
Who was it said - to know a man's make up interms of his chemistry is only
of use if you plan to make fertiliser out of his body ?
It's a matter of usefulness / value - in reality a man is still made of
those physical and bio-chemical components though, however useless that fact
may be in our human world.
Obviously (Platt) I'm not completely sure of that - no-one can ever be
completely sure of anything - the world has been all statistics since
Einstein noticed "god appeared to play dice" - but it sounds the most likely
story to me.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leif Gunnar Alvær" <lgalvaer@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: MD "Is there anything out there?"
> Quote:
> >I say
> >But its the same "empirical" reality they are both describing /
modelling.
> >Physics is not confined to the Inorganic SQ box, unless you constrain
> >physics it to a very limited set of classical laws. Few physicists since
> >1920's have been happy to be locked in that box - read Heisenberg /
> >Schroedinger etc.
> >Physics (by axiomatic definition) can describe all the processes of all
> >reality, every thought we have is founded on physics, but at the high
> >social
> >/ intellectual er levels of complexity it simply ceases to be very useful
> >for day to day descriptions, predictions and decisions.
> >DQ/SQ/Layers model is simply a better model of empirical reality for most
> >day to day real life. But it's only a model / metaphor.
> Unquote
>
> what do you mean Physics can describe all the processes of all reality????
> According to physics, a thought is mearly elctrical activity in some areas
> ot the brain. IS that all a thought is? Some elements of reality cannot be
> described by physics, it is as simple as that, or am I (what am I anyway,
> apart from a coctail of chemicals and electrical impulses) missing
something
> here?
>
> `Brgrds / Lupus Lupus
>
> >From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> >Subject: Re: MD "Is there anything out there?"
> >Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:15:39 -0000
> >
> >Huh ?
> >
> >Platt said:
> >How do you explain that reality obeys mathematical laws created by
> >intelligence?
> >Paul replied:
> >Reality doesn't obey mathematical laws. Reality just does what it does
and
> >mathematical laws are a good approximation of what some of it tends to
do.
> >
> >I say
> >Some of reality DOES obey some mathematical laws.
> >The point is NO mathematical laws are created by intelligence, any more
> >than
> >Newton (or Einstein) created gravity.
> >Reality behaves according to physics, many physical relationships exhibit
> >mathematical rules, maths itself is full of axiomatic relationships. Some
> >parts of maths & physics are axiomatic by definition - the snake eating
its
> >own tail as DMB says.
> >
> >DMB goes on to say
> >If "reality" means the universe that physicists study, then the MOQ would
> >describe it as inorganic static patterns of quality.
> >But if we're talking about the primary empirical reality, which is DQ,
and
> >DQ is described as indefinable and only apprehended by non-rational
means,
> >then all the formulas and equations in the world are of absolutely no use
> >and have nothing at all to say about "reality".
> >
> >I say
> >But its the same "empirical" reality they are both describing /
modelling.
> >Physics is not confined to the Inorganic SQ box, unless you constrain
> >physics it to a very limited set of classical laws. Few physicists since
> >1920's have been happy to be locked in that box - read Heisenberg /
> >Schroedinger etc.
> >Physics (by axiomatic definition) can describe all the processes of all
> >reality, every thought we have is founded on physics, but at the high
> >social
> >/ intellectual er levels of complexity it simply ceases to be very useful
> >for day to day descriptions, predictions and decisions.
> >DQ/SQ/Layers model is simply a better model of empirical reality for most
> >day to day real life. But it's only a model / metaphor.
> >
> >The DQ models "primary empirical reality" much better than the Physics
> >model, for most of real life, but they both model the whole of reality.
> >That value judgement - "better" - is what the MoQ s about, but there is
no
> >exclusivity or absolution here.
> >
> >Ian
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
> >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> >Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 10:56 PM
> >Subject: RE: MD "Is there anything out there?"
> >
> >
> > > Platt said:
> > > How do you explain that reality obeys mathematical laws created by
> > > intelligence?
> > >
> > > Paul replied:
> > > Reality doesn't obey mathematical laws. Reality just does what it does
> > > and mathematical laws are a good approximation of what some of it
tends
> > > to do.
> > >
> > > dmb says:
> > > If "reality" means the universe that physicists study, then the MOQ
> >would
> > > describe it as inorganic static patterns of quality. And instead of
the
> >laws
> > > of physics we have an extremely consistent pattern of preferences. So
> >its
> > > the "behaviour" of those static patterns that can be described and
> >predicted
> > > with mathematical precision. This is a matter of correspondence
between
> >two
> > > levels of static reality, inorganic and intellectual. This is a snake
> >eating
> > > its own tail.
> > >
> > > But if we're talking about the primary empirical reality, which is DQ,
> >and
> > > DQ is described as indefinable and only apprehended by non-rational
> >means,
> > > then all the formulas and equations in the world are of absolutely no
> >use
> > > and have nothing at all to say about "reality".
> > >
> > > Now put that pencil back in your pocket protector and back away slowly
> >:-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archives:
> > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > Nov '02 Onward -
> >http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> >Mail Archives:
> >Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> >Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> >MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger Den raskeste veien
> mellom deg og dine venner
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 07:57:36 GMT