From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 11 2003 - 19:36:34 BST
Hi Patrick
Good point about non-big bang theories.
Certainly Nietzsche's version of DQ/SQ is
given with the assumption that the cosmos
can have no beginning. But this seems to be an
aspect of Niezsche's pessimism, where things are not
going to be any more or less good or evil because if they did have some
direction
they would have reached some kind of final state by now.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick van den Berg" <cirandar@yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: MD the nature of value
> Hi David M,
>
> --- David MOREY <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I like very much:Their hierarchy (which is "higher" and which "lower")
> > is
> > simply a matter of historical chronology and -by combining with the
> > idea
> > that "all static patterns of value migrate towards DQ"- a suggestion
> > that
> > "later" patterns of value have more (or "are more had by") Dynamic
> > Quality.
> > (No more than a suggestion, because of the undefinability of DQ
> >
> > But I would suggest that the creation of matter (stuff you can kick)
> > has
> > been
> > brought about initially by a sacrifice of freedom/quality. It is only
> > after
> > achieveing matter
> > that the cosmos heads back to DQ. I suggest that the big bang is a
> > very DQ
> > situation,
> > that particles have a lot of DQ hence quantum theory's structure,
> > atoms have
> > more SQ
> > less DQ, and molecules have more SQ less DQ. Hence the stability of
> > molecules,
> > and their move from lots of electro-magnetic rushing about to the
> > stability
> > of inertia.
> > This is a potted scheme of A.M.Young's suggestions in The Reflexive
> > Universe.
> > The SOM divide is derived from the strong SQ of everyday matter, and
> > the
> > greater DQ
> > of particles has led to the rethinking of ideas of matter such as in
> > quantum
> > theory.
> > Life represents a cosmic turn from increasing SQ (to create
> > actuality/finite/limited/matter-like
> > stuff) until we reach life and that heads off back home, i.e. in the
> > direction of DQ.
>
> Your scetch of the last 14 billion years in a few sentences reminds me
> of the story of the prodigal son. What strikes me as paradoxal in the
> story, is that you can argue that the return of the prodigal son creates
> more happiness, than his whole trip to decadence has created
> unhappiness. Why would DQ create sqs only to have them return to DQ? I'd
> like to think that undivided, perhaps neutral DQ, or the quantum vacuum,
> can create from this better Quality in the whole. To put it simply, if
> there was first a Nothing (no static qualities at all), maybe there was
> and is a creation where 'positive' or good quality outweighs the bad
> qualities.
> What I'm getting at: when someone walking with Einstein told him about
> the possibility that the total amount of energy in the universe might be
> zero, he stopped in his tracks when crossing a busy road. Anyhow, if the
> answer to this question is negative, i.e. that the total amount of
> energy in the universe is smaller or bigger than zero, maybe a similar
> story goes for Quality (the sum of all qualities). I think the mere
> possibility of this points towards a deep freedom. Maybe we can create
> an sq-world towards a hell, or maybe towards a heaven, or something
> inbetween. There is no determination in this, fundamentally, then, if
> the Sum of qualities is not tied to a universal Law.
>
> A sidepoint, the assumption that there must be a startingpoint of the
> universe, might not be true. Some cosmologists argue that black holes
> are at 'the other side' big bangs of different universes. In order to
> create black holes in a universe, you need to develop stars. By a
> cosmological natural selection principle, universes creating stars
> creating black holes creating universes, this would 'explain' the many
> stars in our galaxy spinning around a black hole, and the numerous other
> stars in this universe. So maybe the Big Bang was just a birth of one
> universe in many, like many human beings are getting born every hour
> (some in a hell, I'd say, many others thankfully not).
> Anyhow (don't know if Yale is still around, I think not?) there might
> not be a beginning of Everything at all. If this is true, hurray,
> infinity is in our very eyes every moment of our lives.
>
> Anyone interested in a meta-metaphysics (of universes)? ;-)
>
> Greetings, Patrick.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
> 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 : Sat Oct 11 2003 - 19:48:58 BST