[MD] Quantum computing

[Case]

[Magnus]
Both the terms "specific points of departure" and "becomes discrete", imply
some sort of border where one level ends and the other starts. But that
misses the point. The point is that a *thing* can have value in more than
one level.

[Case]
First off sorry for misspelling your name. Don't take my questions wrong.
You are offering an interesting twist here. But if this is a system of
multidimensional graphing don't you still need values to plot? In your
example for Ian you said (0, 0, 0, 17) for the intellectual value. I
understand that you were just tossing out an example but in order for this
to be really useful you would need a way to use real numbers.

[Magnus]
I realize you're fishing after where I think the biological level begins in
terms of biological entities such as amino-acids, proteins or cells. But all
those *things* have both inorganic and biological value, so they are 2
dimensional in the MoQ level space.

For example, take a protein. A protein has mass and has therefore inorganic
value. It also has a bunch of other inorganic values such as color, inertia,
etc. But a protein has also biological value, because an animal in need of
proteins will value the protein very dearly. It won't lose its inorganic
values just because it has biological value, it still has the same mass,
inertia and color. On the other hand, this protein has no biological value
to the sulfur based life at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean.

[Case]
But isn't this the point? There is a continuum between the inorganic and the
biological. At some point proteins begin working together in complex units.
It is certainly fair to say that a cell is more biological than a virus and
a virus is more biological that an amino acid etc. While you could certainly
plot multiple dimensions as you suggest you would still need a way of
ranking or assigning values to the variable.

> [Case]
> So what would this kind of graphing tell you?

[Magnus]
It tells me that what we usually call a *thing* (living or dead), can be
more accurately described using the 4 MoQ levels than any other system of
classification. Because other systems of classification usually end up
contradicting itself, or placing the *thing* in several contradicting
"compartments" or nodes, causing what Pirsig calls a Platypus. But since the
MoQ levels are orthogonal, they can't contradict each other. It's perfectly
fine to assign several types of values to a thing.

[Case]
But if you are just going to assign values to various characteristics how
does graphing it tell you more than a simple list of characteristics? Also
there are lots of taxonomic systems that don't pretend to be anything more
than useful ways to organize things. The MoQ is claiming that its levels
have metaphysical significance.

[Magnus]
I'm not very sure about this statement, but doesn't most systems of
classification usually divide all objects it tries to sort into two or more
piles (Pirsig talks about this somewhere, doesn't he?) Then it continues to
divide those piles into smaller and smaller piles. The problem comes when
you after a couple of steps encounter an object belonging to more than one
pile. Because there's often an underlying assumption that every object
should belong to one pile and one pile only.

But of course you can plot all sorts of dimensions this way. But the point
is that the MoQ static levels are organized this way. Never mind that many
other systems are as well.

[Case]
Most classifications systems are admittedly arbitrary and the rules change
to match new data. Pluto just got demoted from being a planet to being a
planetoid. When the platypus was discovered a new category was created in
biology. Taxonomists usually expect this. A more rigorous and powerful
taxonomy was the Periodic table which actually predicted that new elements
would be found to fill in the holes in the table. Particle physicists used a
similar table to predict the existence of new particles.

> [Case]
> How did that work out for you in the old days? I keep getting told that DQ
> is undefined and we are not allowed to talk about it except in warm fuzzy
> terms.

[Magnus]
Never really had a problem with it here, but I see your point. But I don't
think I commit a MoQ sin when I do. Saying that something changes doesn't
say much about what it changes into, so it's still pretty fuzzy and unknown.

[Case]
I agree whole heartedly. In fact it seems to me the chief value of the MoQ
arises not simply from that first cut into static and dynamic but from the
fact the both are quantifiable; they have value. But some seem to have
problems with trying to quantify DQ in any way shape or form.