[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

Dave, Krim,

Can't agree with "brittle" ... they are real in a pragmatic sense.
That is useful if defined discretely, and that discrete definition may
move with a different basis for defining it. (Hence the current
discussion in this thread about what makes the biological level.)

In reality patterns on patterns give us many onion-skins to play with,
but the stack and the ordering are real. Different definitions
defining the boundaries have different significance ... that's the
reason to debate how "good" a definition is. More than just
heuristics.

I'd agree that they are not "absolute".
Ian

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:41 PM, David Thomas
<combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> [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.
> [Dave]
> Again an "independent" Ditto.
>
> Dave
>
>
> 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
>