[MD] The MOQ and the sciences.

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus and All.

On 29 Mar.you cried:

> No No No No No!! Static inorganic patterns have EVERYTHING to do
> with physics and cosmology! You're doing it again. You totally
> confuse "reality" with "pointing at reality".

The sciences are intellectual pattern - that much we agree on - 
then then the world that the physicists examine must be treated 
as if it was intellect's "matter" because there exists no "inorganic 
value patterns" to science. Trying to impose a Q-physics is plain 
impossible. I've read that it's possible to calculate a moon trip by 
General Relativity  - if you have a thousand years and a bank of 
supercomputers at your disposal - but this job is infinitely easier 
done with Newton's physics. However, inside black holes and at 
speeds close to light GR must be applied. The MOQ is for the 
extreme (final) questions. "Leave unto Intellect what Intellect's is 
and unto the MOQ ...etc".      

> I can of course observe the ball falling and then think about how
> fast the ball should fall etc. In this case, it's me thinking about
> physical models and how they stipulate how the ball should move, and
> those models are intellectual patterns. But intellectual patterns
> describe things and WHAT THOSE PATTERNS DESCRIBE ARE INORGANIC
> PATTERNS!

These are physical phenomena to physics, and I can't for the life 
of me understand what speaking about value patterns - in this 
setting - adds to our understanding of ball trajectories. BTW What 
pattern is it that observes the inorganic patterns "valuing to fall"?   

> But ok, as long as you keep these doubts for yourself, I'm ok with
> it. Just don't come interfere with us who want to use the MoQ for
> those purposes.

Doubts?  Not at all, I see the MOQ opening up a new world, 
devoid of SOM's paradoxes, but this it does only by the 
intellect=S/O interpretation (both subject and object confined to 
intellect) but the MD has become a competition of closing minds 
to the obvious. However, I'm grateful for your effort to debunk it, 
it's more honest than the ignoring tactics.     

Bo