[MD] What is SOM?

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus

21 Aug. you wrote:

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

OK, point taken.

> 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". 

Can you be a bit more MOQ-specific?

> 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.

DMB is the one who makes the MOQ fall outside reality by 
insisting that it is an INTELLECTUAL description of REALITY, 
meaning a subjective, secondhand, abstract (Platonic) shadowy 
version of the real world. While I insist that the MOQ is the 
QUALITY REALITY. How "off" can you be?      
 
> The original text was "No, intellectual patterns are...", not "no
> intellectual patterns are...". Gödel's Theorem doesn't apply.

Your paragraph read:

    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.  

("Recursion" isn't in my dictionary only "recurrence")

In my interpretation you say that intellect is a symbol level (a 
subjective, secondhand, abstract, shadowy) version of the real 
article). where the lower levels are reflected, i.e. that science's 
"logies" correspond to  the first, second and third levels. Is that so? 

No value pattern really fits the scientific counterpart, Pirsig spends 
much time to show that inorganic value doesn't fit the physical 
matter matrix (wish he had spent as much time showing that 
intellectual value don't fit the mental mind matrix) 

It fails particularly regarding the third level because "sociology" has 
nothing to do with social VALUE. According to science individuals 
cooperate when forced to, principally they are free, while MOQ's 
social value is in itself a freedom... from biology's dog eats dog 
existence.  

> 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 don't know whether we agree or disagree here 

> 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'll wait for your essay to appear on the moq.org. homepage.

Bo