[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Bo,

(1) Mission accomplished - ie it doesn't matter to you whether the SOL
interpretation originated with Pirsig or not, so you can drop that.
Good.

(2) Given that, it doesn't matter to anyone what you call your
interpretation, but I understand your parallel to QM / QT and the
suggestion of the alternative name ... one of the reasons I have been
a big supporter of your line.

(3) If you are going to hand out personal insults, please back up
specific hypocrisies, or withdraw the insults.

Ian

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:49 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> All MOQ Discuss.
>
> I'm back, but after this upheaval it can't be business as usual  so I
> better make some meta-points clear. Even before that, my sincere
> thanks to those who have supported me, I hate to the make it personal
> and would have liked to say "...those who have supported the MOQ"
> because I know that Mary and Platt do defend the MOQ. Likewise
> shame on the hypocrites who - to my great satisfaction - are those who
> don't know the first thing about the MOQ -  Ian and Dan f.ex. - from
> DMB I didn't expect anything else. Reserved thanks to Matt whose
> defense was above me, but sounded good. Ditto for Steve for pointing
> out the strange new rule of not mentioning Pirsig as the origin of the
> SOL interpretation. Well the good man Horse have moderated himself
> it seems so here we go again.
>
> The meta-point is that Quality Metaphysics bears some strong
> likeness to Quantum Physics (QP) and as you all know there soon
> formed two interpretations -  the weak and strong - the former
> represented by Albert Einstein can be said to confer to SOM-ism, while
> the latter - Niels Bohr the front figure - were the true QP-ist. Neither
> lived to see the matter settled in the eighties when the Einstein-Rosen-
> Podolsky (once) thought experiment was carried out and the strong
> interpretation confirmed again and again.
>
> Nowadays physics has given up on rationalizing QP - it's just used
> faultlessly -  because rationality spells SOM (look to Mary's post a few
> days ago with a quote from ZAMM ) and physics knows nothing about
> the world-shaking MOQ and its own weak/strong struggle taking place
> on this obscure site. It's no risky prediction that once the metaphysical
> counter-piece is settled in favor of  the strong (SOL) interpretation, the
> MOQ will have an immense impact on Physics by resolving/dissolving
> its present SOM-induced impasse.
>
> So, from now on I'll drop the SOL and call it by it's proper designation:
> "The Strong Interpretation of the MOQ". (SIM)  Whether Pirsig agrees
> or not is of little interest, no one can copyright reality and the MOQ is
> not an expansion of the intellectual level, but an expansion of reality
> itself.
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>