[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

And I believe a zero, or two, is one of the big 
reasons why the hunt for the Hadron, at Fermilab and soon at CERN.










At 02:44 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:

Sharath, Marsha,
I've heard it described as a place holder for numerical values
a whole number representing nothing. which caused a stir
in Greek philosophy.
Zero figures heavily in physics and chemistry and denotes a point of beginning.
infintesimals are addressed in calculus and higher mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal







________________________________
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:26:34 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism




Not sure, but zero, along with infinity, does
seem to be something physicists don't want as an answer in their equations.



At 02:23 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
 >I wonder what really is zero
 >
 >On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:08 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
 >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Can't Joe create something like a Plank's Constant for himself, one
 > > guaranteed to get rid of those nasty zeros.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > At 01:56 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
 > >
 > >> Joe,
 > >> Well, division by zero is not so much "physically impossible" as it is
 > >> "in violation of mathematical axioms."
 > >> Division by zero is an operation for which you cannot find an answer,
 > >> so it is disallowed. You can understand why if you think about how
 > >> division and multiplication are related.
 > >>  12 divided by 6 is 2  because
 > >>    6 times 2 is 12
 > >>
 > >>  12 divided by 0 is x  would mean that
 > >>    0 times x = 12
 > >>
 > >> But no value would work for x because 0 
times any number is 0. So division
 > >> by zero doesn't work.
 > >>
 > >> There's a special word for stuff like this, where you could conceivably
 > >> give
 > >> it any number of values. That word is "indeterminate." It's not the same
 > >> as
 > >> undefined. It essentially means that if it pops up somewhere, you don't
 > >> know
 > >> what its value will be in your case. For instance, if you have the limit
 > >> as x->0
 > >> of x/x and of 7x/x, the expression will have a value of 1 in the first
 > >> case and 7
 > >> in the second case. Indeterminate.
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> ________________________________
 > >> From: Joseph Maurer <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
 > >> To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
 > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:58:28 PM
 > >> Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
 > >>
 > >> Hi Bo,
 > >>
 > >> I will work on the complications.  Thank you! for your encouragement, and
 > >> the Time you have put into MOQ.
 > >>
 > >> Joe
 > >> On 7/13/09 11:14 PM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
 > >>
 > >> > Hello  Joe
 > >> >
 > >> > I've noticed comments from you that includes me, but I have
 > >> > developed some eye problem (when gazing at the screen for a long
 > >> > time some strange patterns start to appear)  I must simply limit myself
 > >> > ...give priority to "saving the MOQ" :-)
 > >> >
 > >> > However, this your input goes to the heart of the matter:
 > >> >
 > >> >> Imho (in my humble opinion), MOQ (Metaphysics Of Quality) reasonably
 > >> >> changed the basis of the logic of SOM (Subject Object Metaphysics).
 > >> >
 > >> > Right you are.
 > >> >
 > >> >> SOM logic defines an undefined subject by the action of a defining
 > >> >> verb.  In the case of dividing by 0 this is illogical. Descartes
 > >> >> states: ³I think therefore I am!²
 > >> >
 > >> > As ZAMM describes it SOM emerged as a result of the Greek
 > >> > philosophical frenzy that brought that culture away from its old
 > >> quality-
 > >> > based (Aretê) reality. Now, with LILA this must be put into a Q-level
 > >> > context and it's plain that SOM is the intellectual level emerging from
 > >> > Aretê as the social level. And only now can Descartes' statement be
 > >> > evaluated and we see that SOM (with him) had reached its final stage,
 > >> > a mental (mind) realm totally removed the material one. After
 > >> > Descartes - with the empiricist - arose the problem which of the two
 > >> > realms is the real (causes the other) and that see-saw that has gone
 > >> > up and down ever since. This quandary was what brought young
 > >> > Phaedrus to despair and triggered his Quality insight that (as you so
 > >> > correctly say) "...changed the basis of the logic of SOM"
 > >> >
 > >> >> The  subject has only intentional existence.  Aristotle defines motion
 > >> >> in a similar way: ³The act of a being in 
potency in as much as it is in
 > >> >> potency.²  In SOM the subject is undefined (with only intentional
 > >> >> existence from the object) and becomes defined by the action of the
 > >> >> verb and object. E.g., the man is eating.  The ³man² is defined in the
 > >> >> eating, and we can distinguish the ³man² from a statue.
 > >> >
 > >> > This may be correct, but terribly complicated. SOM's problem is that
 > >> > the subject can't exist without the 
world, and the world not without the
 > >> > subject, i.e. the mind/matter duality is an aggregate and yet SOM's
 > >> > logical base does not allow this so it's plain that a fundamental base
 > >> > shift is needed ... just what the MOQ is and in its light the S/O
 > >> > distinction becomes its STATIC intellectual level. This way the VALUE
 > >> > is retained while the problems dissolve.
 > >> >
 > >> >> In MOQ (Metaphysics of Quality) the subject is defined in an
 > >> >> evolutionary hierarchy.  The object, the level of evolution, is
 > >> >> defined in the action, SOL.
 > >> >
 > >> > At least the above about SOM = the intellectual level is the SOL
 > >> > interpretation.
 > >> >
 > >> > Yours sincerely
 > >> >
 > >> > Bodvar
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >> >

____________

"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain 
and increases inner strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama