[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

Fri Aug 14 05:52:26 PDT 2009

Ron,

The reasons I got interested in information modelling are pretty much
the same reasons I got interested in the MoQ. Engineers are life's
SOMist pragmatists so it's difficult to tempt them away from objective
ontologies of things that exist in "their" world - and the philosophic
foundations of most modelling are largely Aristotelian. I do however
get opportunities to slip in MOQish doubts and realizations about the
intangibile qualities of many of the "things" the business mostly
deals in - evolving hearts and minds. It's a dirty job, but someone
has to do it ;-)

Ian

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like MoQ theory goes a long way in that sort of environment
> do you get a chance to employ it?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:35:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Ironistic Metaphysics
>
> Ron,
>
> BTW - that correction also means the Lorenz transformation is not what
> it appears.
> It can only be some as yet unexplained mathematical oddity until it is.
> The "cosmic asymmetries" are a complete fudge at the moment.
>
> I used to design and analyze parts for military aircraft ... once upon
> a time (for a year or two, nearly 30 years ago) ;-)
> Been mainly in the Oil, Gas, Refining, Energy & Chemicals engineering
> business - the last decade in information systems and modelling.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> Ian, Thanks for the clarification, Wiki is usually the fastest way
>> to gain semi-reliable info, enough to prove my point
>> about Bo's usage of the term anyhoo. But as you
>> state, it takes alittle digging in other sources to get
>> a more accurate explaination.
>>
>> You design fighters for the RAF don't you?
>>
>> -Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:14:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Ironistic Metaphysics
>>
>> Bo, you sir, are the master of misinformation and a hack. Simply
>> muck-spreading a meme.
>>
>> That "surprising fact" about travelling at different speeds leading to
>> different relative time is a myth however many wiki pages and popular
>> science books say otherwise. It would be plain paradoxical if it were
>> true.
>>
>> It's the absolute acceleration not the relative velocity, that
>> determines which of the relatively moving observers record slower or
>> faster time, distance and ordering of events. Relatively they are
>> always both moving at the same velocity relative to each other.
>>
>> Even wikipedia gets this right if you look at the right pages between
>> the right edits.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>
>> The weirdness is that there does in fact appear to be an inertial
>> frame of reference for the absolute acceleration "at a given location
>> in a so-called expanding universe". But of course science largely
>> chooses to ignore this inconvenience when applying for billion dollar
>> funding post-Copenhagen. Come back Einstein.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ian
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bo:
>>> The MOQ is a meta-metaphysics compared to the Aristotelian-
>>> Academical term, but as I try to convey, it robs SOM of its "M" rank
>>> and thereby degrades it to a sub-set of its own. Some people show
>>> their inability to pull themselves by hair or bootstraps out of SOM by
>>> not seeing this "transformation". To move from Newton physics to
>>> Einstein's needs a set of equations called Lorenz Transformation, the
>>> SOL is such a procedure from SOM to MOQ.
>>>
>>> Ron:
>>>
>>> The Lorenz transformation has nothing to do with transforming
>>> calculations from newtonian to relativity.
>>>
>>> "In physics, the Lorentz transformation precisely describes how,
>>> according to the theory of special relativity, two observers'
>>> varying measurements of space and time can be converted into
>>> each other's frame of reference. It reflects the surprising
>>> fact that observers moving at different velocities report
>>> different distances, passage of time, and in some cases even
>>> different orderings of events. The Lorentz transformation was
>>> the result of attempts by the eponymous Hendrik Lorentz and
>>> others to explain observed properties of light propagating in
>>> what was presumed to be the luminiferous aether; Albert Einstein
>>> later reinterpreted the transformation as a statement about
>>> the nature of space and time themselves and derived it from
>>> the axioms of relativity.
>>> -wiki
>>>
>>> You sir, are the master of misinformation and a hack.
>>>
>>> The SOL procedure, as far as I have been able get from you,
>>> it a semantic one of stripping the "M" from SOM and adding it
>>> to "M"OQ. quite a complicated procedure Bo, what mathematical
>>> formula did you use?
>>>
>>> For you, using the gallery metaphor, MoQ is the only painting in the gallery
>>> a bigger one than the previouse painting that was the only painting in the gallery
>>> which now hangs as a detail might hang on the larger painting of the MoQ.
>>> Bo's MoQ. Yay Bo.
>>>
>>> But the MoQ I subscribe to. the one that Pirsig presents really isn't a painting at all
>>> but the ability to recognize and value other paintings, it's the knowledge that there is no
>>> one "real" "true" painting that they are all true in their own context and their value
>>> is relative to my own context.
>>>
>>> This creates a "radical metaphysic"
>>>
>>> Bo's "Meta-Metaphysic" is culturalcentric, limited and falls to the same absolutism that SOM does.
>>> It produces ideas of western cultural superiority.
>>>
>>> He produces no support for his assertions other than his rather limited reading of Pirsigs work
>>> and a handfull of vastly misunderstood theories and terms. But he seems to have learned
>>> a very important aspect of "truthiness" that hammering on a single statement long enough
>>> will give it creedance and an illusion of verifyablity and acceptance. Where, in P.T. Barnum
>>> style, the illusion of self importance and granduer go's miles in selling snake oil, the aire
>>> of acerdimic authority is more persuasive than actually knowing what the hell one is talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> but we love our Bo just the same
>>>
>>>
>>> and his struggle with SOM's testicals
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>