[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
Thanks for the thoughtful response, I'd a been disappointed to have put
this one out unanswered,
Tim




> [Mark] Your idea is a good one.

[Tim]
yikes, don't encourage me!  Let us say that at least we cannot conclude
that it is terrible yet.

> [Mark]  I have tried to get enough understanding from
> MOQ
> to create such equations.

[Tim]
I am thinking that we must start even further back than equations. 
Where does the idea of 'equation' fall out of metaphysics?  Does it?

> [Mark]  They must be very simple of course.  I don't
> think there is yet agreement or perhaps a hesitancy to describe too much
> in
> concrete terms.  We have had a discussion about providing characteristics
> for dynamic quality; whether or not that is appropriate, for example.
>  Perhaps it is some kind of sacrilege.

[Tim]
I understand the hesitancy, but I think if we 'follow our noses' we
might ...  For my part, I think the first thing for me is that quality
cannot be 'simple'.

> [Mark]   So at this time, it is difficult
>  to
> form any kind of equation.  Also the fluidity of language makes a
> physics-like interpretation difficult.  But I would not say this is
> impossible, and even if it is done with fuzzy math, something may be
> learned.

[Tim]
Just to reiterate, my sense says, stay perfectly true to our
metaphysical capacities.  I have yet to see a maths fall out of the MoQ
either.  If our efforts lead us to something solid on the other side,
that will be the fruit, that will be a check on our work, it will be
that, in fact, which tells teh 'objective side' what is worth keeping
from their camp.  But I don't want to take what they have already
produced, because everything they have is got by starting in the middle
(this too is from R.P. Feynman: I can't produce it exactly, the idea
isn't new, but I remember peeking through his lectures on physics, and
there, somewhere pretty early on - but in the middle - is a chapter on
simple math.  Remember, he was lecturing to top notch college students. 
Anyway, that chapter looked to build up to something about logarithms
maybe, it has been a while, but the thing that stuck out for me - and
made me wonder if this was his point in talking about simple math to
such adept students - he talked about his perspective on teh foundations
of math: even mere arithmetic, the idea of 1 and 0, is 'starting in the
middle'.)  Anyway, I think it this difficulty of where to start,
non-dimensional points, strings, etc. that keeps physics beyond the
'veil'.  Metaphysics is about poking around on the other side, but can
we grab hold of anything while we are there?

> 
> >
> >
> > [Tim]
> > I don't know how to compare our metaphysics to the ancients.  I do
> > recognize that they were great thinkers in this regard.  They didn't
> > have teevee and the internet, and video games, and etc. to distract
> > them.  But I'm not ready to bow before them.  And I don't think you are
> > either.
> >
> 
> [Mark]
> No, not bow to them, but maybe save some time by learning.  Not
> reinventing
> the wheel for example.  A while back I reminded Ham of an essay called
> The
> Equations of Maya.  It is an interesting read and relates physics to
> (old)
> Vedic Thought.  A google should pick it up. It took me a few reads to get
> it.

[Tim]
I just did the google search and the first thing that came up was:
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html
this is what it says first:
"Modern cosmologists usually take non-existence for granted and hope to
get the Universe out of nothing. But must we assume that in the absence
of the Universe and in the absence of space and time there would be
nothing? Or can we, without so rash an assumption, find clues to what
might remain if instead we take existence for granted but leave out
space and time? Could what remains, through apparition or maya, appear
as this Universe? Can we, from what remains, get a Universe of gravity,
electricity and inertia?"

I guess I'm not the only crackpot behind the veil!

Thanks.

> 
> [Mark]
> You know, I kind of agree with you, I found it incomplete.  The concept
> itself was a good one.  I haven't read Rosshalde, I'll give it a try if
> it
> is in the library.

[Tim]
to be sure, this wasn't a glowing recommendation for 'roshalde'; it is
more an expression of my frustration with 'the glass bead game', the
game part itself mainly.  'roshalde' was pleasant at the time.  As far
as Hesse goes, 'narcissus and Goldmund' was my fav; so you can
calibrate.

> >

> [Mark]
> I guess it depends on what you are expecting from our knowledge. 
> Knowledge
> is a creation of man.

[Tim]
How sure are you?

> [Mark] The meaning I get is knowing that a sense of self exists.

[Tim]
how different is taht from the 'equations of maya' page I just quoted?
 

> 
> [Mark]
> As a scientist I see no reason why not apply some math to MOQ just to see
> where it goes.  The problem is in getting some firm definitions from
> others.
>  To describe is to destroy is what I have heard.  But, I am hopeful.

[Tim]
if we are to try to start from math, again, perhaps that is to destroy. 
But we have all been discussing, quite precisely, though with no settled
bullseye, and I don't think that any of us thinks that we have
destroyed.  Again, I am suggesting sticking to OUR guns, see if anything
structured falls out.
 
> >

> [Mark]
> For me it is too early for ripening.  I wrote a piece to you just
> previously
> on art and physics.  Metaphysics could have the same impact on physics. 
> In
> fact many physicists are coming around to Buddhism.  The Buddhists just
> smile.

[Tim]
about the 'ripening', good to know, thanks for sharing.
about the art, I am hoping that I will have something to say if I take
another look at your post.
about Buddhism and physics, I followed through a bit of reading
yesterday... some was talking about all the quantum physicists who were
tehre at the dawn of the quantum era, I guess back then physics was not
so estranged from eastern mysticism, in fact the objective side
(Einstein was one) was the minority; but I guess they won out after WWII
--- for the time at least.


> [Mark]
> In my opinion, metaphysics is intended to answer that question.  The
> answer
> provides meaning, a sense of Wow, peace and harmony with the world. 
> Maybe I
> am the crazy one, who knows.
> 

[Tim]


> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> Mark
> 

Thanks again, really,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.