[MD] reality

Sat Nov 27 08:39:44 PST 2010

You don't get it Mark, you keep on defining yourself as observer.

Once an observation is made for the first  time, by an observer
the fact already became known observable reality, you cannot destroy the
information after that event,so strictly spoken trees will make a sound in
the forest when they fall, everytime since then.

Using radikal empiricism every time again as something new to be deployed
on every upcoming  observation, is not a good idea.

try this, standing in front of the ocean,as a radikal empiricist, observe
it, only the waves and the water,and conclude, "there is no fish in the
ocean, i cannot observe it, it is no reality"

wrong , the observation was already made long ago, by the first observer,
a fisherman, that there is fish in the ocean. You cannot make reality or
information un-done again, information cannot be destroyed.

Try this as another example, the power cordconnection in the wall.
Observe it as a radikal empiricist, and conclude there will be no
elektricity if i put a copper nail in the socket, with my hand, because i
cannot observe it.

Wrong, you defined yourself as observer,but the Primary  observation was
already been made, earlier on,you can safely assume that you will get
electrocuted if you try.
Still, you did not re-invent elektricity by that attempt, it was already
there.
The first observation ever placed it into observable reality ever since.
You cannot destroy this information.

The false observation that is misleading you is to define yourself as
observer.
The second false observation is using the word/tool "radikal"....without the
tandem,..'radikal empiricism'
Don't observe radikal, solely depending on radikalism.
The third false observation is this.
The tree will make no sound , ever, not on earth , not in a spacelab, not on
the moon, not in vacuum or in any reality, without hearing observer.

Take your ability to hear away,and you will never observe the sound.
So , to relying on your ability to 'hear' as observer, will generate again a
false observation, what about deaf people?...
will the tree make a sound when falling?

The last mistake is this, as a false observation.
trees never make sounds when they fall,only the soundwave does that.
On the moon a tree will fall silently, always.

Radikal empiricism is a mighty tool, but only in the hands of people
mastering it
Every observation,no matter how observed, no matter how the observer was
defined, generated information.
Its impossible to destroy this information.

And yes , information resides at all 4 levels, under the ubrella of quality.
There are no objects or subjects without quality, not even information or
non-information.

There is at least some physikal evidence that information itself is a form
of matter/energy.
I will try to find a link.
Adrie

2010/11/27 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>

> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > A droplet of water contains more information than a non-droplet of water
> > A collection of sandgrains on the beach contains more information than a
> > non-collection of sandgrains on the beach.
> >
>
> Hi Adrie,
> Are you substituting information for matter?  If that is the case, then I
> would agree with you from a materialistic point of view.  It is difficult
> when terms are substituted. Would you then say that Quality is information?
>  Perhaps you have already said this, I forget.  I would say that Quality
> creates information.
>
> >
> > [Adrie]
>
> Regardless of the observer/observed,-it is possible to leave the
> > observermodel
> > out of the picture, if you work this out on a sheet of paper, because you
> > keep the relative position as observer, not the absolute(the absolute
> > requires to observe
> > physikally), the relative position not.
> >
> > Now you can avoid this difficulty, you, Mark , defined yourself as the
> only
> > observer in the above stated, but you forgot all other observers, and you
> > did not define your properties to observe, your variable's, your tools.
> >
> > We are on very thin ice now, ..we are trespassing on a physikal world
> with
> > metaphysikal branches.
> >
>
> [Mark]
> I believe you are trespassing into the metaphysical world with the physical
> world, not the other way around.  We define the physical world with
> metaphysics.  This is the difference between a materialistic viewpoint and
> one of Quality.  If the physical world is True to you, then you need to
> change your perspective to one of MOQ.  This is the first step.  After
> that,
> everything is different.
>
> >
> > [Adrie]
>
> starting from the relative model, the sheet of paper, ask yourself this,
> > without
> > observing it,..
> >
> > will the informationcontainer(the number of sandgrains ) ever be the same
> > again
> > after only 1 grain of sand is moved in the model,keep in mind that this
> > moving
> > will change the total configuration,the position of all other grains,
> > without moving them. the configuration can never be the same again.
> > Even if you succeed to re-place the graind,..it became older,containing
> > more
> > information.
> >
>
> [Mark]
> Well, this is an interesting metaphysical question.  If a tree falls, does
> it have a sound if nobody is around to hear it?  Are you talking about the
> butterfly effect with this?  Do we speak of things that do not contain
> information?  Can you separate that which has and doesn't have information.
>  Is information opposed to something else?  Are you bringing in the
> phenomenon of time into your metaphysical observation?  I am not sure what
> you are using as your ground for reference.  Please explain.
>
> >
> > [Adrie]
>
> Also keep in mind that nothing is observed.
> > There was no observer defined/present
> >
> > Can you tell me the endconclusion? its not an equasion or something.
> > It should be clear.
> >
>
> [Mark]
> Yes it is clear, you are speaking of the physical world, not the
> metaphysical one.  Which do you think comes first?  Perhaps we are all
> something else's thoughts.  Can you go there, or are you still stuck in the
> physical world?  This is where Phaedrus was before coming up with Quality.
>  Can you see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wildflower, hold
> infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour?
>
> Think about it.
>
> Mark
>
> >
> >
> > parser
> > 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
> >
> 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
>

-- 
parser