[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Marsha

> You wrote "I think you (Bo) and many others"?  Who else are you addressing?

Can't think of anyone in particular right now, but since my view of the MoQ's 
levels quite recently evolved because some observations didn't quite fit in my 
old view, I'd say that I can find some pile of "r" in every other view.

On the other hand, most others here are quite fuzzy when it comes to details 
about the levels, they mostly claim they are just one convenient way to view 
reality, not reality in itself.

> You are not talking about things-in-themselves, are you?  Because they 
> do no exist within the MOQ.  Right?  This is, of course, related to my 
> question in the Pattern thread.

Yes, I saw that. But yes, I'm talking about things-in-themselves. What else? And 
I very much think they exist within the MoQ, otherwise I wouldn't be so dead set 
on trying to explain them within the MoQ's levels.

Think of it this way. If the MoQ were to say that things doesn't really exist, 
it would invalidate everything that physics, and all other sciences, have ever 
accomplished. It would say something like:

- Well, guys, it's very convincing and such, but I'm afraid non of it is real 
cause we can't make heads or tails of it philosophically.

Then science would simply laugh at philosophy and go on with its own business 
anyway. But I think philosophy *can* help, but then it must of course 
acknowledge the reality of what the sciences are doing, and that's a big part of 
what my latest essay is about.

	Magnus