From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 18:13:27 GMT
Hi Platt
For me, certainly most inorganic DQ evolution has
already occurred and become SQ, but some
new partcles or molecules may emerge under unique
conditions like particle accelerators, in fact for me
the longer a pattern has existed the more static it becomes,
hence our capacity to use 'law' as a description of certain
static patterns. New crystals certainly emerge and have unpredictable
properties by the way, a well known phenomenon, they also form
more quickly as more and more scientists produce them in labs,
something that has been explained in various ways such as scientists
exchanging traces of the crystals in their beards at conferences, a better
explanation is that when new properties emerge the efficiency/timing
improves with practice! Similar to phenomenon that rats in control
groups get better at doing mazes that they have never seen after their
collegues
next door have been practicing them for a while. This could be telling us
stuff about
how DQ becomes SQ I think. DQ all the way down, but only if you go all the
way
back to t=0.
regards
David M
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: MD SQ-SQ coherence and the Biosphere.
> Hi Mark,
>
> > In a message dated 3/24/04 3:36:50 PM GMT Standard Time,
pholden@sc.rr.com
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > > Sorry Mark, I don't buy it. You'll have to provide some evidence that
the
> > > inorganic level is evolving.
> >
> > Hi Platt,
> > May i refer you to Anthony MacWatt's paper, Pirsig's Metaphysics of
> > Quality, available via the index of essays at the forum website. At the
end
> > of the first section you will find a diagram which indicates the
continued
> > evolution of all levels beyond the emergence of the previous level. 1.
Note
> > how the gradient of each level is moving up the evolution axis of the
> > diagram with respect to the direction of time? 2. Note also that each
level
> > is evolving faster with respect to time than is the previous level?
> >
> > Also, consider the following from the end of the paper:
> >
> > Pirsig has this to say about probability and preference:
> > "When the distinction between them is examined an interesting fact
appears.
> > Preference is always supposed to be subjective. It exists only at the
> > intellectual and social levels. At the biological level it becomes
> > controversial as to whether animals such as cats have a preference or if
> > they function according to Skinnerian stimulus-and-response probability.
> > And at the atomic level it is assumed that only probability exists."
"The
> > MOQ puts an end to this ancient freewill vs. determinism controversy by
> > showing that both preference and probability are subsets of value. As
the
> > distinction between subject and object becomes relatively unimportant in
> > the MOQ, so does the distinction between probability and preference.
There
> > is no basic difference between mind and matter with regard to free will,
> > only a difference in degree of freedom. Subatomic forces can express
> > limited preferences too." (letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt,
May
> > 3rd, 1997)
> >
> > i.e. preference is seen as being on a continuum rather than suddenly
> > manifesting itself at the human level. In the MOQ, the higher up the
> > evolutionary ladder you go (from sub-atomic particles to people) the
more
> > freedom you have in making preferences. This is why generally a person's
> > experience will be that much richer and complex than a dog's while the
> > dog's experience will be that much better than a tree's which will be
> > better than a piece of rock's and so on. (My emphasis.)
>
> Particles exhibiting "preference" at the sub-atomic level says nothing
> about the inorganic level evolving. The fact that a iron filings "prefer"
> to be close to magnets is a static inorganic moral pattern. Where's the
> potential for evolution or response to DQ in that?
>
> I'm still waiting evidence from you or anyone that the particles, atoms
> and forces that make up the inorganic level are evolving into new
> particles, atoms or forces, or creating new molecules such as DNA.
>
> Best regards,
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Mar 26 2004 - 19:20:31 GMT