[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Krimel]

[Magnus]
You ended your post arguing that the first cut of a metaphysics ought to 
be between good and bad. And as it turns out, that's exactly what 
Quality is about. Of course we mostly talk about good, but whatever is 
not good, is bad.

Ok, so everything and everyone judges and divides all experiences into 
good and bad ones. Lower levels, like inorganic, don't have much choice 
in the matter, but higher levels do.

[Krimel]
I was not arguing in that we "ought" to make good and bad a first cut only
that we "could". Metaphysical first cuts are matters of choice not
necessity. We evaluate sensory experience in terms of "good" and "bad"
autonomically without conscious effort.

[Magnus]
When an inorganic experience happens, it always follows the good path. 
I.e. earth keeps circling the sun and its molten iron core keeps 
spinning in a slightly different pace than the rest, producing a 
magnetic field.

[Krimel]
Good and bad have no meaning at the inorganic level. It is just shit
happening.

As Case once said: 
"Nature always ambles the path of least resistance. 
 Life's the way we shot the bird at entropy's persistence."

[Magnus]
But when a biological experience happens, it is also filtered through 
this Quality. However, the very complex inorganic stuff that is 
happening is producing one and only one biological judgement. And it's 
this biological judgement that is the whole world for the animal making 
the judgement call. It has no idea how it's supported by lower levels, 
or even that it *is* supported. It only knows, or rather feels, that 
this is good or this is bad and that's the whole experience.

[Krimel]
Right behavior can and is often genetically encoded.

[Magnus]
Regarding fractional dimensionality, I didn't know that about fractals. 
I did know about our spatial dimensions having been unfolded by the big 
bang, at least 3 of them, plus time being unfolded as we go along, or 
some such. But the string theorists still think there are 7 more that 
wasn't unfolded, right?

[Krimel]
I think they are up to 11 but who's counting?

[Magnus]
Anyway, first of all I don't really see that dimensions are not discrete 
from that example. The zooming in on a point is a gedanken experiment, 
but how is it connected to our spatial dimensions?

[Krimel]
Here is a fairly simple explanation of how dimensions can be fractional.

[Magnus]
Also, I can imagine that our 3 spatial dimensions are rather tightly 
connected. But even if they are, it doesn't really say anything about 
metaphysical, non-spatial, dimensions.

[Krimel]
The concept of extension is very important in all of this of course but
virtual worlds have special dimensions that do not have extension. My home
world of Norrath is vast yet is unextended.

[Magnus]
And, on the absurdity about the level conflicts and lower levels always 
winning. That's not as absurd as it might seem and that's because lower 
levels are much more static than higher. In other words, higher levels 
can *count* on lower levels behaving as expected. But of course lower 
levels will always win if they really misbehave.

[Krimel]
I think the levels in the MoQ are a mess and Andy nailed them correctly
earlier today with a comment something like we create levels on the fly. I
have used that terminology several times in the past. Pirsig's claims that
"level" are discrete and that they have conflict are just obviously false.
Like all systems of levels they may have heuristic value, they kind of work
as rules of thumb but they all break down when you try to put too much
weight on them. Ten years of haggling ought to convince anyone that Pirsig's
levels are particularly brittle in this respect.