[MD] Animals and Dynamic Quality (Recast)

[Krimel]

> [Craig]
> It could be both that things that change can be static patterns and also 
> that all change is the result of responses to DQ.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Thanks for this. As I said, I think "static patterns" or "probability 
> waves" (in the SODV sense) are the experienced probability patterns of 
> many, many aggregated responses to DQ, beginning with the "highest" 
> (in the MOQ hierarchy) and most complex repertoire of possibility as
> spiraling down in ever-decreasing circles of possibility into the 
> lowest and simplest responses of inorganic patterns to DQ.
> 
> [Platt had said]
> Cloud formations change because the next formation is better than 
> the last?
> Hardly.
> 
> [Krimel then replied]
> Hardly? No, exactly! Well I am not fond of the "better" part but I wanted
> to applaud the progress in your thinking.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Agree. What we perceive of as a "cloud formation" is a probability wave
> (again, in the SODV sense) emanating from the aggregate responses 
> (to DQ) of the many smaller inorganic patterns of which it is 
> constructed (themselves "probability waves" emanating from the 
> aggregate responses (to DQ) of the smaller patterns of which they are
> constructed).
> 
> So it is perfectly appropriate to say that cloud formations change 
> because it is (pardoning the use of the term) "better" for them to do so.
> Indeed, it is just such a statement the MOQ encourages us to make.
> Consider the cloud as a "static, inorganic probability wave". The 
> changes we "experience" are the result of fluxuations in the aggregate 
> responses to DQ from which this probability wave actualizes. 

[Platt]
A highly abstract rationalization, but I don't see where changing cloud
formations, hair styles or one's underwear is a response to the creative
Dynamic forces of evolution.

[Krimel]
You don't see it because you are missing the fundamental nature of DQ and
change.