[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[MarshaV]

ArloKrimel,

"All things tend towards patterns..."?    I'm out!   - Marsha




At 11:20 AM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
>[Arlo]
>"Static inorganic patterns" are merely those that are very, very, very
>highly probable. They are not "held static", they are "static" by virtue of
>having an extreme degree of probability based on subatomic particles
>responding
>to their environment.
>
>All things tend towards patterns of repeated preferences; atoms and
>squirrels
>and people and cultures and math equations. But this never removes "chance"
>from the zero-moment. Agree?
>
>[Krimel]
>Yes, following Newton there was this brief hope that Natural Laws could be
>identified and chance could be driven from nature in general and human
>affairs in particular. That dream was short lived and instead it was
>realized the natural laws are probability statements reflecting very high
>degrees of probability.
>
>[Arlo]
>Well, I'd say "nothing" is dynamic. Period. Dynamic is the undefined
>uncertainty of the zero-moment. Whenever we see "something" we are seeing
>"static patterns", patterns of preferred response.
>
>But in the sense that these "static patterns" are always responding to that
>zero-moment, they are always in a state of flux on some level, in some ways.
>"Static" is an illusion. It is a Gestalt that we see on the flux of the
>cosmos.
>
>[Krimel]
>Exactly, "static" and "dynamic" are complementary terms that describe
>relative degrees of uncertainty. Just as static patterns like mountain
>change over time and even something as solid as a diamond is composes of
>whirring carbon atoms the world is Heraclitian, ever changing. "Static" just
>means changing slowly our within boundaries and "dynamic" mean changing fast
>or varying widely. Either term may be applied to the same phenomena
>depending on one's perspective.
>
>Also it is important to note that nothing can be completely dynamic either.
>For example, efforts to develop a way of generating truly random numbers
>have proven difficult because every known technique produces some kind of
>internal bias. And even if such a technique were found, it might not
>function as intended since a purely random process can produce a trillion
>heads if a coin is tossed often enough. That would certainly "appear" to be
>biased and not very helpful.
>
>[Krimel]
>Right the MoQ is not about a particular map. It is about cartography.
>
>[Arlo]
>Yep. That's how I see it too.
>
>[Krimel]
>Why do you think this is so difficult, especially for people familiar with
>Pirsig?
>
>
>
>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/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.