[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

Mon Oct 23 10:27:59 PDT 2006

Case,

Fabulous post! Better than great.

Shining changes the previously accepted definition. We redefine.

Micah 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:37 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

So does the shining interrupt the measuring? I mean we have all this stuff
to measure. Like Steven Wright said, "They say it's a small world but I
wouldn't want to paint it."

Reality is hard to paint. Ask anyone who ever tried to sugar coat it.
Reality seems more like the medicine we are trying to get down, than a
flashlight in a cave. 

Are we in the Cave?
Have we gotten to the Cave yet?

The Cave is on the first level.
We were attacking Clever Demons 
They are on the second or third level 
So we don't really need the flashlight anymore.

Who cracked my Anthropomorphizer?
I was told there would be no math!
Theoretical math even!

You want to know which mathematical concept best captures the MoQ?

Rounding Error

Case

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Micah
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:47 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

Steve,

Reality shining through the cracks of our anthropomorphizing, is how I
account for your example where math crosses to the theoretical.

Micah

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Stephen Hannon
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:00 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Micah]
Logically, 2 + 2 = 4 - is that true? Or do I need faith for that
equation to be true?

[Steve H]
Given our system of mathematics, I would say that is true.  However, I
think we need some sort of faith in our system of mathematics.  I have
posted on something like this before and mentioned the part of ZAMM
about Henri Poincare.  He talked about how the different geometries
developed by changing one of Euclid's postulates, and in the end it
turns out that some systems of geometry are better at explaining
reality than others.

So do we need faith in our system of mathematics to be true?  I say I
"trust" our system of mathematics as the best description of reality
until something better comes along.  But, I could be wrong.

Regards,
Steve H
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/