[MD] What is SOM?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

skutvik at online.no wrote:
> How will I know whose logic you use?

Was the phrase "So, according to your logic, you wouldn't ..." unclear?

> However no static Q-level 
> knows anything about the Quality context ... if that's what you 
> mean by self-reference?  

If you by "Quality context" mean the DQ/SQ split, then I agree that no static 
level has any clue about that.

But that's not self-reference. Self-reference is when something refers to 
*itself*, not when it refers to something it doesn't even know about. That would 
be called "impossibility".

>> since you don't allow for intellectual patterns to reference themselves,
>> you end up having to add a level whenever that happens, and that's just
>> impossible in the long run. 
>  
> Add a level?  The MOQ is a metaphysics the greatest system 
> there is .. follow me that far? It postulates the DQ/SQ split and 
> several static levels  ...OK? Then it follows by simple logic that it 
> can't be part of any of its own levels, but simply be itself. Must you 
> keep harping on that 5th level for ever?

As dmb pointed out, your MoQ falls outside reality. I thought you had called it 
a 5th level once, but even if you don't, it still falls outside reality. That's 
a big problem. Way much bigger than the one you thought you saw before "fixing" it.

>> No, intellectual patterns are simply able to reference (or mean) *any*
>> pattern, both lower levels, other intellectual patterns and also
>> itself. This is called recursion and is widely used in computer
>> science. And if a metaphysics doesn't take that into account, it
>> simply breaks.  
> 
> Does computer science know/use the MOQ? My hunch is that 
> your "...no intellectual patterns are simply able...etc." refers to 
> Godel's Theorem about no system being absolutely closed, always 
> a God's Eye that sees it from the outside.    

The original text was "No, intellectual patterns are...", not "no intellectual 
patterns are...". Gödel's Theorem doesn't apply.

> I still can't see how (what I believe is) Godel's Theorem have an 
> impact on the "storing, retrieving and manipulation .. " as MOQ's 
> explanation of the origin of SOM's mind. But let me ask you how 
> the MOQ may take Godel into account, i.e. become totally closed 
> system without reverting to mysticism?   

I don't see that we have much choice in the matter. As our definition of 
"universe" stands, it *is* totally closed. I would say that the MoQ agrees with 
both Gödel's incompleteness theorem *and* Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. 
They are simply the philosophical, mathematical and physical sides of the same coin.

> I haven't heard about any "Magnus' position" except your notion of 
> a social level disappearing down into absurdity.

Trying to explain it to you is obviously just a waste of time. I've tried 
several times but you never reply on the specific issue.

I've sent my essay to Horse for posting on moq.org but he seems to be away.

	Magnus