[MD] Equations for Quality

[118]

Hi Ham,

I took some of our discussion on equations from What's Emptiness and put
them in a subject line of their own.  In this way those who find the notion
somewhat sacrilegious can skip them.   This is just an off road adventure,
perhaps to nowhere.

For you to get some insight into where I am coming from, I invite you to
take a read on the Equations of Maya.  This is part of where I got the
inspiration (if you can call it that).

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

You may have already read this since I posted it for discussion several
years ago.  The point, as you know, is to apply the methodologies of physics
to MoQ, if at all possible.  Perhaps not the right approach, but a different
one anyway.

No expectations, move on if you wish, there is a lot of other stuff to
discuss.

Cheers,
Mark



Previously on the mathematical approach (Taken from [MD] What's Emptiness?)

THE QUALITY EQUATION
The use of constants may be a path.  Variables of measurement are equated
through constants.  I will begin with what I have read in these posts
concerning the breakdown of Quality, realizing that such a division is
simply a tool.  The division of reality through physics into distinct
forces, and such, is also just an imaginary tool but it does provide
usefulness.  As I have said before, my knowledge on where MoQ has gotten to
is not sufficient to provide any solutions, yet.  So..

Quality can be considered in two parts, dynamic and static.  This has been
termed as DQ and SQ.  From my understanding, SQ is a component of DQ and I
have not been made aware of any other components.  So in some way SQ makes
up DQ.  We start with an inequality:

DQ does not equal SQ

but

DQ = fn(SQ)

that is DQ is a function of SQ; we could also postulate that

SQ = fn(DQ)

where SQ is a function of DQ.

This initial definition is important because it sets the premise to be
constructed.  Of course we can put functions on both sides of the equation,
but that would not help much.  So I will use DQ as the overriding term to be
defined in the same way that the physics equation for force: F = ma is used
(force equals mass times acceleration).

Now we have to define the function itself.  Typically this is done
empirically through data collection followed by equation fitting.  The data
in this case is can be found in radical empiricism (which I know only a
little about), or pragmatism (ditto), or other tools.  Before doing so, we
can consider whether the relationship of DQ and SQ is one of simple algebra.
That is whether DQ is simply made up of SQ

DQ = Z(SQ)

Where Z is a constant.

I don't think that this would fly in this forum.  So perhaps there is an
additional variable that can be introduced which we will call iB (this
stands for in Between).  In this case either it acts on SQ, or adds to it.

DQ = iB + SQ

  or

DQ = iB(SQ).

Now the chore is to break both SQ and IB into measurable (philosophical)
components.

My attention span at this point is probably the same as yours, and wondering
what other posts there are to read besides this nonsense.  So I will stop
with that.  The question left on the table is: can we provide further,
component based, definitions for SQ?

Cheers for now,

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
>









ADRIE KINTZIGER

The spectrum  of grayshades availiable between Black and white is infinite.
So is the spectrum of quality between static and dynamic, the number of
shades is infinite.

without defining quality itself,...
we cannot define any function for dq or sq.

What you are trying to say, mark , with the limp equation, (love the
inbetween variable), is probably this

There is a constant flow of quality between static and dynamic quality, its
a linear model, based upon progress.
quality progresses.


- Show quoted text -
--
parser
- Show quoted text -



[Ham]
Mark --


Quality can be considered in two parts, dynamic and static.
> This has been termed as DQ and SQ.  From my understanding,
> SQ is a component of DQ and I have not been made aware
> of any other components.  So in some way SQ makes up DQ.
> We start with an inequality:
>
> DQ does not equal SQ
>
> but
>
> DQ = fn(SQ)
>

Right off the bat you start with what I cannot accept as a valid premise.  I
do not regard DQ as a "function" of SQ.  Although RMP has not specifically
defined it as such, my understanding is that DQ is the primary source.  I'm
not a logician, but can a source be a function of its components?  Correct
me if I am wrong, but it would seem to me that it's the other way around:
Constituents are secondary to the Source, therefore represent its functions
-- relations, increments, levels, properties, antimonies, and so on.

In the physical examples you cite (e.g.,  F = ma), the constituents are all
functions of nature or the universe.  You wouldn't say that the universe is
a function of force, mass, and acceleration, would you?  Neither can the
Creator be a function of its creation.

This initial definition is important because it sets the premise to be
> constructed.  Of course we can put functions on both sides of the
> equation, but that would not help much.  So I will use DQ as the
> overriding term to be defined in the same way that the physics
> equation for force: F = ma is used (force equals mass times acceleration).
>
> Now we have to define the function itself. ...
>

I'm going to cut off my response here until the basic logic is resolved.

Based on your rationale, it would appear that SQ leads to, or creates, DQ.
This was the same approach taken by the existentialists Heidegger and Sartre
who claimed that "existence precedes essence" and determines its outcome. Is
this your interpretation of the SQ --> DQ theorem?

If I've misunderstood you ontogeny, please let me know.  Otherwise, I don't
see how I can be of help in working out the details of a concept I don't
believe in.

Essentially speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


DQ = Z(SQ)
>
> Where Z is a constant.
>
> I don't think that this would fly in this forum.  So perhaps there is an
> additional variable that can be introduced which we will call iB (this
> stands for in Between).  In this case either it acts on SQ, or adds to it.
>
> DQ = iB + SQ
>
>  or
>
> DQ = iB(SQ).
>
> Now the chore is to break both SQ and IB into measurable (philosophical)
> components.
>
> My attention span at this point is probably the same as yours, and
> wondering
> what other posts there are to read besides this nonsense.  So I will stop
> with that.  The question left on the table is: can we provide further,
> component based, definitions for SQ?
>
> Cheers for now,
>
> Mark
>

- Show quoted text -
 Reply
 Forward


118 to moq_discuss
*
*
Hi Andrie,

Yes, infinite.  I am not sure what your point is there except to perhaps use
the word infinite as something meaningful.  I thought that creating a
metaphysics of quality was what this forum was for.  If you don't think it
can be defined then you are left to the realm of speculation.  I am simply
proposing to define aspects.  You can go ahead and discuss something you
cannot define.  Seems a bit pointless however.

Now, in terms of a limp equation.  My understanding of your position would
be to call Newton's equations limp when they were proposed.  It appears you
need some stamp of approval or something. Equations build useful structures
for metaphysics.  If you do not like the physics approach then this is
certainly not apparent from your posts.

It appears that you would define Quality as something that flows between
Qualities.  This is a bit circular, please explain.  Are you saying that SQ
and DQ interchange through Q?  Or is Q something in and of itself?  The
equation you are proposing is interesting and could be elaborated, unless of
course you meant something different.  If Quality progresses we can ask from
where and to where, thus defining the limits of the function.

If on the other hand you refuse to accept challenges to your accepted
belief, then I can understand that too.  It is certainly easier to destroy
than to create.

Cheers,
Mark
- Show quoted text
Hi Ham,

I think I understand your concern.  To say it is a function of I mean that
it is permutations of.  A house is a function of the bricks and how they fit
together.  I suppose from that example we can say that the bricks lead to
the house, but doesn't the house lead to how the bricks are put together?
 So, I am not pointing to anything fundamental (yet).  Conclusions can be
drawn from a more sophisticated equation.  According the physics, the
universe is made up of primary forces; it is defined by them.  We can get
into what side defines which side, but the equation simply states that they
are different ways of expressing the same thing.  The purpose of the
equation is to break up Quality into constituents.

My force equation was just an example of something being defined by
characteristics, which in turn can be further defined.  The intent to to
find some universal constants, which in the case of Quality would be
rhetorical devices (I'm sure John or dmb will correct me on this if I'm
mistaken).

So, a tree is a function of its branches and leaves (and of course much
more), meaning how they are put together.  If you accept the use of
equalities then we can move on to describing how Quality is put together.

Mark
- Show quoted text -