[MD] evolution.....MOQ v SOM

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Gav, Mark,

You maybe being a bit harsh on the first paper in the  choice of the
word "incidental", which does kind say something about the  writer as
you say. I suspect (maximum positive spin) he may have  meant
"incidental" in the not directly causal sense ... when he didn't  have
"emergence" or buddhism in his vocabulary ... rather than trying  to
demean its significance ... but you've read the paper and I  haven't
:-)

I think Mark's coherence stuff is an important view and  (although I've
not seen him say it directly) his recent point about "more or  less
static" sq's is related to this IMHO.
 
Mark: Hello Ian, yes, spot on. (I'm trying to put together an essay for  
Horse right now where this should be spelled out. Anyone who would like to give  
it the once over before submission to Horse is welcome to do so, and all credit 
 given to any mods. It will not be ready for a few weeks. The entry topic is  
personal identity, beginning with two very recent som positions it moves onto 
a  suggestion for coherence as a new MoQ term.)

Ian: Where the first paper  talks about "equilibration" it is missing the
difference between  "meta-stable" equilibria - those coherent sweet
spots with plenty of DQ  potential, and stable equilibria with plenty
of stasis. I think I made a  similar observation when you delivered
your paper at last year's conference  Mark, about the mechanical
analogy to your stability / coherence / chaos  quality axis.
 
Mark: I'm very grateful. This needs to be resolved and the essay  does 
address it Ian. Many thanks!

Great stuff.
That Mae-Wan Ho book  sounds interesting and strangely familiar ?
Ian
 
Mark: Thanks for this Gav, may i use it in the above mentioned essay  please? 
It will be all the better for it.