[MD] The Dynamics of Value

Wed Oct 27 02:16:52 PDT 2010

Hello Mark.

I had an idea which said that as you collect information, the amount of
uncertainty grows with the square, while the amount of applicability grows
with the square root. That means that up to the scale of unity you know very
little concerning what you don't know, but you get a lot of applications
cheap.
This is just a hypothesis and it wouldn't be useful, unless you defined the
scale and thus know where you'll find the unity.
But it seems to me that, earlier in history, the problem was just finding
out what one didn't know, and that was later termed "discoveries". Nowadays
we have a lot of measurable uncertainty, and know a lot about what it is we
don't know.
If we actually have passed the unity, then it should be time to sift
something out: you wouldn't have time to go through all you could possibly
find out (and the cost for finding out in terms of energy or time would
grow).
This is of course conceived outside MoQ. I should try to consider some more,
and see if I could make this hypothesis somehow compatible, that would be
translate it into MoQ.

/A

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of 118
Sent: den 27 oktober 2010 01:52
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value

Hi A/

That sounds like a riddle of some kind.  How can we know what we don't know
unless we know it?  If you are talking about details of such knowing then we
are creeping into tautologies.  Knowing is creating (and I don't mean this
in some kind of spiritual way).  Knowledge grows.  If we don't know, then we
haven't created such knowledge yet.  It is not as if we are searching for
knowledge, if we were, we sure wouldn't find any out there in the stars.  It
is a human creation that stands on its own, like a growing spider web.

Yea, day of the saints, same thing.  All Hallows day.  Here in the US it is
used to make lots of money.

Mark

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> Hrrm... I was mostly trying to show what could somehow be useful 
> concepts of uncertainty and stressing harder the distinction between 
> know what it is one doesn't know and not knowing what it is one 
> doesn't know.
>
> We have a holyday identified with Halloween and placed at the first 
> Saturday in November, I think, called "Alla helgons dag" (The day of 
> all saints).
> Because of this identification, those celebrating it do that in a kind 
> of American fashion - but mostly there are just a lot of kids getting 
> drunk in the streets. I guess you can't just "rip" traditions like that.
> We have another day, which is always the first of November, which is 
> called "Allhelogona" (Allsaints), during which people go to their dead 
> relatives graves and light candles there.
>
> /A
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of 118
> Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 20:12
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value
>
> Hi Alex,
> Yes, the pointing finger is everywhere.  Some, see it more like the 
> middle finger (don't know if you have that concept in Sweden).
>
> Physics provides great analogies.  The problem with tying a 
> metaphysics to such analogies is that they will change.  So long as 
> they are considered analogies in the same way as those provided in the
bible, then we are OK.
>  It is the direct inference of Truth from things such as quantum 
> mechanics that is restricting and temporary.  As science progresses 
> other analogies will develop, and this is only a snapshot in time.
>
> The description or modeling of chaos is an interesting example of 
> depicting the whole but not the individual.  Often statistics is used for
this.
>  Statistics, however, breaks down or is not applicable at the 
> individual level.  The abuse of statistics is indeed prevalent in the
media.
>
> But, let's not discuss politics or the wolves will come out.  Let's 
> wait for Halloween.  Do you have that in Sweden?  When I lived in 
> Holland many years ago, we celebrated it, and the local Dutch thought 
> is was both weird yet interesting.  Tricks were not well understood by 
> them, though.  And I often found myself running at full tilt from an 
> angry house owner..."God ver domma".
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> Love the analogies though.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Alexander Jarnroth < 
> alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:
>
> > I came to think of another analogy. It's what Jesus said concerning 
> > the "kingdom of God", and I would call that the one sentence in the 
> > whole of NT containing most wisdom. Ha says of "the Kingdom of God"
> > that you can't point at it and say "Here is it" or "There is it". 
> > And then he adds, "don't trust anyone saying such a thing, because 
> > he doesn't know what he's talking about".
> > In Plato, it would be Theaitetos (Theaetetus), analyzing such 
> > concepts and their insufficiencies.
> >
> > But there are useful concepts concerning knowing what it is you 
> > don't
> know.
> > One is derived from quantum mechanics and concerns uncertainty of 
> > measurements.  I've seen that uncertainty-concept applied in other 
> > contexts as well, such as economics and cell biology, when 
> > considering dynamics of systems of non-linear differential 
> > equations. There is also an other uncertainty concept derived from 
> > the first concerning Chaos Dynamics, such as weather forecasts.  
> > Such deterministic Chaos can be completely modeled but the actual 
> > state of the system cannot be determined/measured with sufficient 
> > precision to eliminate uncertainty. But these uncertainties are just 
> > concerned with "knowing what it is one doesn't know". It would even 
> > be logically impossible to "know what it is one doesn't know that one
doesn't know".
> >
> > Going back to the thesis of the absolute reality: I would agree with 
> > the thesis on the existence of such an ABSOLUTE reality, but I 
> > wouldn't agree concerning an ULTIMATE concept of that reality.
> >
> > /A
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Alexander Jarnroth
> > Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 12:36
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > No harm in using that name.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > To me, it seems, that you would like to define DQ as change and then 
> > saying that the direction in which the change, as a kind of vector, 
> > points, should be termed essence. This "attractor", termed "source", 
> > should then be absolute, in the sense of independent on anything.
> > I, myself, presume such an independent existence of "that which is", 
> > but I think that which is, in an absolute sense, is mentally 
> > unreachable. But of course, well working concepts should somehow
> correspond to this.
> > However, I wouldn't term DQ as change towards something, rather 
> > change from.
> > Change from old concepts to new concepts (being this concepts 
> > descriptive, evaluative or both). And I don't mean that a change 
> > away from something leaves that thing obsolete.
> > If all possible useful concepts form an infinite set, as I think it 
> > does, then it just doesn't matter how much you know, there would 
> > still be an infinity left. And if any arrow should point in an 
> > infinite-dimensional space (as I somehow believe both the space of 
> > concepts and the space of "what is" to be) you couldn't possible 
> > have an arrow pointing in any specific direction in every dimension. 
> > I think you could imagine an infinite-dimensional arrow somehow to 
> > be pointing "everywhere", if you should have one such arrow there. 
> > But then, this would be equivalent to having "change away from" as a 
> > value in itself, because the direction of such a change could be 
> > chosen arbitrarily and would the thus have some kind of 
> > correspondence with this infinite dimensional arrow. The only change 
> > that would be immoral, is in the direction towards what wouldn't 
> > work, but anyone heading in that direction would just punish himself by
necessity.
> > Among the Nag Hammadi-texts there is one which I like, called 
> > Allogenes the Stranger.
> >
> > There are a few lines which I like:
> >
> > "Even if he is endowed with blessedness and perfection and silence, 
> > He is not the blessed one, nor is he perfection or stillness.
> > But he is something existing THAT ONE CANNOT KNOW AND IS AT REST.
> >
> > Rather they are completely unknowable aspects of him, While he is 
> > much superior in beauty than all good things.
> > And in this way he is unknowable in every respect, And it is through 
> > them all that he is in them all.
> >
> > Not only is he unknowable knowledge that is proper to him, HE IS 
> > ALSO UNITED WITH THE IGNORANCE THAT SEES HIM
> >
> > Whether one sees in what way he is unknowable, or sees him as he is 
> > in every respect, or would say that he is something like knowledge, 
> > he has acted impiously against him, being liable to judgment because 
> > he did not know God.
> > He will not be judged by that One, who is neither concerned for 
> > anything nor has any desire, BUT HE IS JUDGED BY HIMSELF BECAUSE HE 
> > HAS NOT FOUND THE TRULY EXISTING ORIGIN. He was blind apart from the 
> > quiescent source of revelation...
> >
> > ...Concerning all these matters, you have heard certainly. Do not 
> > seek anything more, but go. ... It is not appropriate to dissipate 
> > further through repeated seeking..."
> >
> > But of course you could use any definition that is useful, but I 
> > think every definition is a simplification. It always misses 
> > something. It can't include all and still be useful. So there can't 
> > be any final answer. Everything that is useful, you can use, but I 
> > don't think there is anything more. DQ to me, defined simply, would 
> > be "trying to find out what you don't know, you don't know". You 
> > can't have a goal-directed search then, because then you know what 
> > it is you don't know, or you're seeking for something which probably 
> > doesn't is (or exists).
> > I have a little saying, in opposition to Jesus, which goes: "He who 
> > seeks won't find anything, but he who doesn't seek could possibly 
> > find
> anything".
> > Concerning vision if you let an objects oscillate at about 60hz and 
> > with the right amplitude, the object would vanish from the vision 
> > from any humane being beholding it for some time. But what a person 
> > would see, where the object once were, would not be a void, or 
> > anything like that, but just the surroundings filling in.
> > In the first book Pirsig used a metaphor which I liked. "To see in 
> > the corner of the eye". The cells at the end of the retina only fire 
> > when noting a change in the measured light. To you actually just see 
> > such sudden changes in the corner of your eye. In the center of 
> > vision you see a lot of details instad, but you must continually 
> > change the focus to really see patterns or changes. But if you think 
> > you know what you're looking for, you would always move the center 
> > of your vision there, and just miss these little changes which could 
> > possibly be noted in the corner.
> > I think there was something similar in the Hitchhiker's guide to the 
> > galaxy.
> > It was called "somebody else's problem". It could only be seen if 
> > just happened to note it in the corner of your eye. It's a good 
> > metaphor anyway you put it.
> >
> > /A
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham 
> > Priday
> > Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 06:55
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value
> >
> > Hi Alex --
> >
> >
> > > So guess that what you're really interested in is what in MoQ was 
> > > termed dynamic quality. I think you really shouldn't define that, 
> > > because by defining it, you propose to know what it is, and then 
> > > it wouldn't be dynamic or transcendental or whatever you may wish 
> > > to call it.  I think that the ability to continuously reform 
> > > yourself is the only "pattern" of dynamic to be found. You just 
> > > have to be open minded.
> >
> > Yes, I am really interested in the primary source of reality, 
> > because if we don't take it into account we will never have a 
> > complete ontological thesis.
> >
> > However, I don't understand the premise you 've presented as an 
> > argument against definition.  There is no logical reason that a 
> > concept like DQ or Essence cannot be defined.  It may be 
> > indescribable, unknowable, or beyond empirical reach, but then so 
> > are
> God,
> Perfection, and absolute Goodness.
> > Yet we have defined them, because we understand what such attributes 
> > ultimately must be.  You say that "by defining it, it wouldn't be 
> > dynamic or transcendent."  Why should a definition limit or affect 
> > the nature of that which transcends word meanings?
> >
> > Back in the 15th century, a mathematician and astronomer named 
> > Nicholas of Cusa theorized that God is the uncreated "Not-other".  
> > The significance of this theory is profound.  It has afforded 
> > philosophers a valuable metaphysical tool - a definitive label for 
> > the ineffable Source whose attributive nature is otherwise 
> > indefinable.  I have used Cusa's First Principle as the metaphysical
foundation of Essentialism.
> >
> > Does Dynamic Quality accurately name the Source whose "dynamics" are
> > unknowable and whose "quality" is realizable only to man?   I think not.
> > The term "dynamic" suggests a flow or movement like evolution, which 
> > applies to the physical world but not to a transcendent source.  I 
> > happen to believe this uncreated source does not evolve or change, 
> > but is immutable. That's why I have named this metaphysically 
> > necessary source Absolute Essence.
> > It's a non-descriptive appellation, yet one that is relevant and 
> > logically workable for an ontological scheme.
> >
> > Of course, I realize that it may not be appropriate in this forum to 
> > depart "too much" from the author's vernacular.  At the same time, 
> > constantly throwing words like "dynamic", "static", and "patterns"
> > around with impunity, without really knowing what they infer, tends 
> > to conflate ideas into meaningless "word games" that have little 
> > bearing on philosophical concepts.  I really hope Mark can 
> > successfully apply his "logical constants"
> >
> > to metaphysical axioms so that we can avoid the misconceptions that 
> > careless word usage generates.
> >
> > Thanks for your inputs, Alex (may I address you by that name?).  I 
> > am only acquainted with Huxley's 'Brave New World," but will 
> > investigate "Island", which, as you say, may present his idea of a 
> > more positive
> world.
> >
> > Essentially yours,
> > Ham
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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
>
> 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