[MD] The MOQ difference

[118]

>
> Hi John,
>
Still learning how to use this Gmail, can't seem to organize my mail yet.

I also find it useful to apply the science of physics to MoQ.  For some
reason this makes it seem more universal.  I suppose we are all bewitched by
the art of physics since it seems so complicated.  I am with you, I prefer
the vector analogy.  It does imply direction, but, more than that, it
implies creating new ground.  There is something quite transfixing about
going on a journey.  Quality as a vector implies (to me) something new on
the way.

I just recently reread Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth" (or something
like that, I had to return it to the library).  Despite its somewhat
grandiose and pretentious scope, it does provide me with something to chew
on.  Smith is also bewitched by the possible spiritual and mystical insights
brought by physics.  He uses three lines which all cross at right angles to
each other.  X and Y are space, and Z is spirituality.  He also uses the
notion of a theoretical point (infinitesimally small) to describe the soul.
 Again, this is all useful if it conveys an analogy and becomes an
awareness.   What is the best way to represent Quality?  I kind of like
William Blake's pictures.

It is also possible to use current theories in physics to create a perceived
antagonistic world thus demarcating spirituality.  The use of our current
theory of entropy is such a case.  (Theories are always temporary and state
of the art.  Theories are meant to be disproved in order to advance
science).  When we speak of negative entropy is seems somewhat sinful, going
against the establishment so to speak.  However, by current definitions,
life is anti-entropic, disorder to order, water running uphill.

The question would be whether such anti-entropy analogy is indeed
meaningful.  Life, a small bubble in a vast entropic world, occupying its
special place against all odds.  Perhaps it is just a commentary on the
inadequacy of modern physics.  Physics seems to reach ends that certainly
test its assumptions.  Many equations in quantum mechanics have solutions of
infinity.  The conclusion becomes that the equation is incorrect.  However,
it is quite possible that every time infinity comes up, it represents
Quality.  It seems that physics has reached an end as it is currently being
used, it does not have the power to incorporate the Big Equation, so now it
is being used either to prove or disprove God.  Kind of like proving a
painting is beautiful with calculus.  Do the current predictions of physics
point towards mysticism, spirituality, God, or do we need a new textbook?

Mark

>
>
>
> John previously posted:
> Mark, does this entail the disambiguation of Quality as an axis vs. a
> direction?  A line vs. a vector?  I posit a vector, simply because so much
> of our interpretation of the universe is vector-like - time only goes
> forward, gravity points down, entropy rusts and glass breaks.
>
> Which is why I like the  physical analogy of Quality as the anti-entropic
> vector, but which ultimately  transcends description since in it, "we move
> and breathe and have our being".
>
>
>