[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus and Case

22 March Magnus:

> Hi Krimel (and Bo should read this too)

You bet I do. Can hardly wait for the two of you to develop the 
dialogue. Case who hasn't got a clue about the MOQ and you the 
great MOQ obfuscator. This will be fun ;-)   

Wryly

Bo




















> I don't think we've "met" here before, but that was great stuff in
> your last post. It's here we should look for the origins of the MoQ
> levels, not sure if you touched those much in this thread before.
> 
> > The molecular inventions of the Dynamic force are imbued with agency
> > of their own. They reciprocate, preserve, replace, they work
> > together. How does parsing out all of this agency explain anything?
> > Nothing significant about the description is altered by removing it.
> 
> Right! DQ is given way too much credit in these events. Attributing it
> to DQ makes it too easy to transform DQ into something religious.
> 
> However, we also have the 4 static levels, and I have a long history
> in trying to spot them in also these early structures. For example,
> the cell Pirsig describes as a dynamic nuclei and the big static
> protective protein is in my view a society. The whole cell is better
> than the sum of its constituents. They live in symbiosis and they are
> held together, not by gravity or some other inorganic value, but by
> the simple fact that it's socially better to stick together than not.
> The "glue" that makes them bond is their biological attraction to
> eachother. It's this biological glue that made them find eachother
> valuable in the first place, and it's also the glue that facilitates
> communication between them (language).
> 
> I have a rather new (well, new to me anyway) idea when it comes to
> this, and given your last post, perhaps you have something to add to
> it. I suspect the basis for the biological level is how well two
> different molecules fit together in 3 dimensions. This is, as far as I
> understand, how the active part of medicines work, and it's then not
> very far fetched to conclude that this is also the basis for taste and
> smell. This would also explain why taste and smell usually triggers a
> more intense sensation than other senses, and can make us remember a
> particular piece of wood we tasted almost 40 years ago (including who
> was there and the weather). Those senses are the oldest and are
> built-into every cell of our body. The other senses, hearing, sight
> and touch came much later.
> 
> > Ian and Arlo have talked about approaches taken by theoretical
> > physicists to conceptualize how variations in cosmic constants might
> > alter the probability of life. This can be addressed to some extent
> > through computer simulations. Some mix and match values for known
> > cosmic forces. Others like Wolfram work with artificially
> > constructed set of rules to see how they interact to promote
> > complexity and growth in virtual environments.
> 
> Haven't read much about those, but I suspect they would find the four
> levels in those universes as well, but in very different forms. Even
> if it's impossible to make heavier atoms than hydrogen, and even if a
> lower gravity makes it impossible to ignite stars. As long as the
> environment is dynamic enough to allow change, and static enough to
> allow things staying the same for a while, then the four levels will
> get to work and trigger some kind of life.
> 
>  Magnus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
>