[MD] MOQ Recursion

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Adrie

Nice talking to you. You have a cool style, like opening a window to get some fresh air.

"ADRIE KINTZIGER" <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
>Quote , Magnus.
>
>For the umpteenth time, what makes you say the non human perspective is
>objective? Have you missed every quantum mechanics discussion we have ever
>had here? Or don't you believe in the uncertainty principle? Or quantum
>mechanics at all? There's no scientist left that, in this light, believes in
>an objective reality anymore, and it doesn't matter one bit if the observer
>is human or not. Have you totally missed that? Quantum mechanics agrees with
>the MoQ. We can leave the human perspective stack and use MoQs rules also in
>the physical (NOT OBJECTIVE) reality.
>
>
>Adrie
>
>Only 1 remark on this item , Magnus, if you allow me, Quantum mechanics is
>the old name for Quantum physiks,
>
>it was okay in the old days, but later on, it became considered as too
>narrow funded, the word was too archaic.
>quantum physiks provides a better coverage of the complexity of this matter.

Ok, didn't know that, but I can certainly see the reason for the change. I'd spell it physics though, a tad too anal perhaps?

>
>Quantum physiks agrees with the Moq
>
>maybe you should re-think it as
>
>Quantum physiks is not  in conflict with the Moq, they are congruent.
>but mind you , this is only a proposal , of course, for the rest i agree on
>the complete paragrafe,all the way.

I looked up congruent, and it said "in agreement". I don't really see how "not in conflict with" is different from "agrees with". I think both have something to say about events at very small scales, and since they say the same thing about the same type of events, they agree about such events, and that tells me more than "not in conflict", because "not in conflict" could mean that one talks about events at small scales and the other judges blueberry pies.


>The stacks, well, good approach, valuable, you are trespassing on an other
>mans intellectual property, without damaging it, nice.
>As i'm thinking of it , ...probably there are some important nuggets to be
>found with this approach.
>
>just crossed my mind , think it was Dave(dmb) , some days ago,talking about
>the way of "reason" crossreffering ZAM(in context)

Must have missed that.

>mmm, you seem to be on the path of reason, Magnus, like Andre, Dave,
>'Pirsig', Horse, Ian, etc..., nice, a thinker in the room for a change.

Thanks.

>I think one of this days , Magnus , i will tell you about the mechanism of
>the uncertainty-problem..

I'm all ears. Just make sure to address Bo as well.

>, and i like you to tell me more about your stacks

Sort your MD mails according to subject and look for the first Stacks post. There's also a link to a drawing a day or two later.

C'ya

   Magnus