[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Magnus

22 Sep. you wrote wrote:
 
Magnus before:

> >> * What type  of pattern is the observed data of a falling stone?

Bo answered:
> > The observation of a falling stone is a visual experience and thus
> > biological, that goes for stones at rest also. Hope this doesn't
> > make stones "biological" ;-)  

> That wasn't not exactly what I was asking, but as far as you
> understood the question, you got it right. I asked about the *data*,
> not the experience of observation.

You possibly mean something like (ZAMM's about) the Ptolemaian 
Cosmology that explained the (data of the ) heavenly bodies from the 
premises of the earth as universe's center, then Copernicus whose 
premises was the sun as the center thereby doing away with the many 
crystal wheels within wheels. 

This example was to demonstrate the "Copernican Revolution" and 
that the MOQ is one such in regard to SOM. What SOM called the 
physical reality loosely falls under MOQ's inorganic level, but the MOQ 
does not distinguish between matter and the forces that govern it. 
Likewise regarding the biological level that encompasses all living 
organisms, but it does not profess to explain what holds organisms 
(your dog) together. And so on upwards.

Without being harsh but these your questions reflects your fallacy of 
viewing the MOQ from its own intellectual level something that gives 
the illusion that it provides some detailed scientific-like explanation 
(f.ex) how biological organisms has some embryonic "social forces" 
that keeps them together, and/or that some intellectual patterns are at  
work inside social patterns. This creates a mess.   

Bo:
> > The social level has many explanation why a stone falls, but all
> > included some animated force (god) imbued in things or in the ground
> > attracting it. The intellectual level has the gravity explanation,
> > the latter is higher value.
 
> That's just wrong. A social explanation is like a green dream, the
> words just don't mix. 

Well, this your "instant philosophy" is beyond me, the social level 
had/has lots of explanations - from the "primitive" animated world to 
modern religions with god-created worlds.

> > A stone is some inorganic aggregate. It exists to me and to all who
> > observe it ... and to all I tell that I've seen it if they trust my
> > word, but that .... alas.
 
> Is the observing crucial to the stone's status as existing? Does it
> exist before someone observes it. If it doesn't, what happens when the
> first person observes it? Does it pop into existence right there and
> then?

Again, this is viewing the MOQ from its intellectual level. If something 
exist without a mind observing it is one of SOM's many paradoxes 
(platypus) that the MOQ profess to resolve. IMO it does so by 
relegating the former SOM to its own intellectual level, the paradoxes 
are now seen as stemming from the level being static, i.e. the 
mind/world distinction is not fundamental.  

Think for a change.

Bo