[MD] a-theism and atheism

[118]

Hi Tim,
I don't mind having a discussion, I don't shy away.  If you are convincing I
can change my mind.  So I will mind you, I don't think you are a
perfectionist, you ask valid questions.  Some comments below.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:19 PM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Mark,
> I'm feeling perfectionistic so I'll point this out,
> don't mind me if you don't want, I know you're a scientist.
> Tim
>
> >[Mark previous to Tim] Here's another Quality analogy.  [...] In this way,
> everything is spread out on the
> > axis of Quality (dimensionality is not important). So what we see is not
> the
> > object itself, but its representation within Quality.
>
> [Tim previously]
> I will point out for the casual reader that this 'what we see' is what
> we would see if we could see it directly against the axes of quality,
> dimensionality not important.  What-we-see may be many levels further
> in, so that the axes of quality are objects of faith.
>

[Mark]
Tim, you preface this with "casual reader".  I would change that phrase to
"indoctrinated reader".  Our education is based on object recognition.  So
this is nothing casual, it is well trained.  What I am suggesting, is to
replace the object with what is defining it, that is Quality.  Quality can
only be seen as a difference between things.  If there is only one thing, we
would have not idea as to its quality.  The concept of separation does not
quite do the trick, but it helps to get there.

Your recognition of objects is just as much a matter of faith as seeing it
the other way around.  This faith is so deep, that one does not even
question it.  My interpretation of Quality questions that faith in objects
as essents (that was for Ham).  It is not a matter of being further in, it
is just a different perspective.  Have you ever seen those optical pictures
that can be seen two ways, but never both ways as the same time.  The one I
am thinking of is a picture of a silhouette of two people's faces facing
each other in black, but between them contoured by their faces is a vase.
 So either it is a picture of a vase or a picture of two faces, but not
both.  (I can find it on the internet if you want).  The brain does funny
things with object recognition.  Quality is a paradigm shift, for lack of a
better word.  It is telling the brain to change its perspective.

>
>
> >
> > [Mark previously] In science we collect data points.  Such points
> represent one of many
> > possible points
>
> [Tim]
> in order for science to 'work', a portion of reality has to be
> simplified enough that experiments can be said to be 'precisely
> repeatable', and in that sense, data points can be said to be one of
> many possible...
>

[Mark]
Yes, I would agree, each point represents a determination under a set of
conditions and as such only represents one of a number.  In order to
interpret these data points and make a story out of what is happening, we
construct a model.  Let's choose physics because it is simple.  If a cannon
shoots a ball at a certain arc, the ball falls some distance away.  As we
change the arc of the cannon, the ball falls in different places.  We take
each case and compare the distance to the arc.  From this we construct a
theory related to arc and distance.  It is this theory we are after, not
where the balls fall.  From the theory we can predict how to set the cannon
so that we can destroy the castle wall.  At that point we are dealing
strictly with a model.  This model represents the data points, but much
more.  The theory of Quality (if you will), represents the objects within
and of course much more.

>
> > [Mark previously] and are only symbolic of a function which underly their
> > pattern.
>
> [Tim]
> the simplification of reality implies 'function' - and (knowable) model.
>

[Mark]
The analogy is meant to show that a model is to data as Quality is to
objects.  Since Quality is only one word, we can say that it is a
simplification of many objects.  This is just an analogy and cannot be taken
literally, of course.

>
> > [Mark previously]  We create a model to describe such points and their
> significant
> > appearance  It is the model which matters not the data points themselves.
>
> [Tim]
> but from even a level up, it is teh reality that matters, not the model.
>

[Mark]
Well yes, I would agree with you there, I cannot live in a world that is
purely metaphysical thought.  To eat a sandwich, it is the bread and ham and
cheese that matters.  Metaphysics is a model.  However, just like with the
model of gravity, it can help to understand and to generalize things.
 Quality can make sense out of things that seem weird or threatening.

>
> >[Mark previously]  If the model works, then data points should fall within
> it.
>
> [Tim previously]
> to the extent that the model works, reality will furnish data to show
> itself through it.
>

[Mark]
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  Data must support the model, yes.
 Let's call reality Quality (for example).  The presence of realized objects
could be said to support Quality.  Just like data and a model.  Of course
the model of Quality is more intuitive, and I am not sure what equation we
can give it, so we just have to use it as if it was a valid model.  Doing
this creates an awareness that can fit the model.  Maybe that was kind of
circular, but I am doing my best here.

>
> >
> > [Mark previously] You can't see gravity, but you can measure it with data
> points like a
> > falling object, for example.  Gravity is what underlies; the falling
> > object
> > is gravity at work.  Such data points only serve to describe gravity,
> > they
> > are not gravity.
>
> [Tim]
> and neither is the model.
>

[Mark]
What I meant was that gravity is the model.  It is the theory of gravity,
something that we made up.  Gravity is a creation of the mind, it has all
sorts of equations associated with it that people thought up (well, at least
Newton and Einstein).  The falling object is not gravity (the model).
Objects are not Quality.

>
> >
> >[Mark previously] Same with Quality and objects.
>
> [Tim]
> where I will highlight that Quality is likened unto the phenomena of
> gravity, objects are likened unto ones ability to perform the experiment
> measuring data points; and the model of the data is our attempts at
> understanding in our static patterns.
>

[Mark]
Perhaps, I'll have to think about that.  What I would say, is that static
patterns are the objects, Quality is the model.  With this analogy dynamic
quality would perhaps be the rate at which the objects fall.  So, the
objects and the rate they fall is equal to Quality (Gravity).  This is of
course an oversimplification, and stretches the analogy.  But, nothing is
perfect and this is simply done at the expense of destroying the analogy.
 So don't take that too seriously.

>
> >
> >[Mark previously] Just another way to put it, there are many analogies.
>  Don't take them
> > too
> > literally, these words are just data points which represent something
> > underlying which form them and give them meaning.
>
> [Tim]
> yes, literal becomes a hurdle, or impediment; an analogy is a way around
> an impediment.  Our ways around impediments become our next impediments.
>  So, from both perspectives, we must take them seriously though.  There
> is a real; and we can, seemingly, get pretty close to it.
>

[Mark]
The analogy I was pointing at with words, is that words are simply data
points in the model of the concept I am trying to convey.  Of course, as you
say, words are tricky things because they are not static, but very
subjective.  My creation of a concept with words would take your accepting
them in exactly the same way I am using them, which is highly improbable.

>
> [Tim]

But then, what do you do with it??? (i.e. The aging Mark is Quality at
> work)
>

[Mark]
Well, what I do with it is a long story.  In many ways, I had to do it.  I
asked too many questions and lost meaning.


> Cheers and thanks for the questions or statements,
>
Mark

> --
>
>
> 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
>