[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[Magnus Berg]

Hi again

> Those that first proposed the world to be round, instead of flat, were 
> the source of much laughter.

Yes, but the difference between the round-world scientists and philosophers 
stating that nothing is real, is that the former had a constructive theory as 
opposed to the philosophers that are being very destructive. What would be the 
point of doing science if nothing was real anyway?

> In the MOQ there are no 
> things-in-themselves.  This is clearly stated in the Copleston paper.

Must have missed that, any pointers?

> The MOQ does not invalidate everything that physics, and all other 
> sciences has ever accomplished.  It now views these accomplishments from 
> a broader perspective.  It's mutually, interdependent, static patterns 
> of value instead of things-in-themselves.  Hasn't physics been moving in 
> that direction any ways?

Sure, we can call things a combination of static patterns instead. But both the 
static patterns and the combination of them are just as *real* nevertheless. If 
a crane drops a piano over your head, and the piano starts accelerating toward 
you at 9.81 m/s^2, you can't avoid being hit by it by viewing it from a "broader 
perspective".

When physics is investigating small stuff, like quarks and such, it's true that 
they don't find much that resembles *things*, i.e. hard stuff that hurts when 
you get hit by them. But that doesn't mean that the piano (which is made of lots 
of those quarks and such) *doesn't* hurt when it hits.

The explanation is that the "quarks and such" are of a lower level than what is 
required to hurt. It's like asking "what colour has an up-quark?", or "how does 
an electron smell?". But once you get above that level where mass is introduced, 
hurt gets very real.

	Magnus