From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 12:41:17 BST
In a message dated 5/6/04 9:27:43 PM GMT Daylight Time,
peterson.steve@verizon.net writes:
> Patterns can have far weaker correlations with substance than a river
> does. We can think of gravity as a pattern though gravity has
> virtually no properties associated with substance.
Hello Steve,
I have been busy but have kept your post in mind.
One must understand that the key feature of substance is that it is
permanent. This permanence only appears to change because there are changes in its
attributes or modes, (spatio-temperal, form, colour, etc.)
It is possible to appeal to an ultimate substance - God - of which everything
is a mode or attribute? So, you can see how the debate is really one of
permanence and change?
The MoQ avoids many of the problems of substance because DQ is a flux, and
patterns are stable only for as long as they may be sustained. Everything is
evolving or swirling and going nowhere? But even swirls and eddies must be
sustained in their dead-end activities by DQ? This is where i would disagree with
Platt, who suggests some static patterns do not involve DQ.
To move onto the notion of coherence, we may describe very static patterns as
being a particular variety of low coherence. These patterns hover at a sweet
spot of their own so removed from High coherence as to appear almost dead?
To sum up, Substantiality has for its basis the concept of permanence. But
there are no permanent structures in the MoQ.
All the best,
Mark
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 May 14 2004 - 12:44:36 BST