[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Jan-Anders]

Hi Ham

Sorry about that existentialism, I just wondered why you put word 
Essence back-to-front.

Well, the Quality concept is not a God to me. It is more a cloudy answer 
on the question "What is this all about?"

About the Word of St John. Who told him that word? And what is it? Is it 
"Ping"? (Not just kidding.. the theory of the Big Ping vs Big Bang)

At the human level I think it is OK to determine what is good or not. 
"Flat dog - no good." But at earlier levels (and on other yet unknown 
planets) like the inorganic and the organic level the feedback is 
presented in another way. For the inorganic level I think the Higgs 
field can become convenient as a representation of the moral values at 
that level. Just as the darwinistic evaluation of the mutations going on 
at the biological level. I am not really sure about if it is correct to 
build a social structure and a political system upon the same kind of 
value system as there is in the inorganic or the biological level. 
Especially not if we are regarding intellectual values being superior to 
social values.

I think Mark is regarding Quality as some general concept of moral 
working straight through all the levels and even into a coming fifth and 
also as the source of itself? (right Mark?)

I think that what RMP calls the Quality, arete, rta, dharma and more, is 
a balance in three ways, a balance of Energy amount, dynamic/static 
Pattern and relational Value. There are fundamental conditions out there 
which are separating the possible from the impossible and as long as 
anything there is, keeps the balance, it will "be good" and continue to 
exist.

The conditions are not rigid but more like guiding values. Reality 
divided by ideal value (quality) . If it is less than 0.5 it will 
eventually go to 0 and terminate. If it is between 0.5 and 1.5 it will 
try to be 1. If it is more than 1.5 it will be divided into 2 separate 
with the value of 0.75 where the odds of coming to 0.5 or 1 is even. 
These are the real values or just the characteristics of the Quality 
which lies behind any action. At all levels too. Consider this forming 
of integers compared with the maximum levels in the Schrödinger 
equation  and the quantum numbers.

As these values are represented in three dimensions we can see that a 
process with low energy can compensate this by high value in pattern or 
relational value to another event. During the cold war Russia's weak 
aiming system on the H-bomb missiles were compensated with bigger units 
so even if a bomb missed its target with 50 miles the effect should be a 
disaster to the city anyway. This also explains why a fly-swapper is 
working so well.

As using the quality toolbox is a choice between three possible 
balancing actions it is no wonder why most people are a bit confused. 
"Shall I try to be rich or in a better shape or can I be loved as just 
as the one I am by someone else?" But can celebrity really compensate a 
weird hairdo?

Federal reserve are now discussing State Bonds with 100 years duration. 
Is it really the Amount of money that is the problem? Could it be the 
Ways the money are streaming or could it be the current Value of money? 
Obama talks about the Sputnik Moment, that is really something else than 
Friedman Monetarism. Obama talks about the Value of money. Not the 
Amount of money. You decide. Obama cant do it alone. (I tried to stay 
out from the political thread this long.)

This was a lot, hope you can read it and that you enjoy it.

best

Jan-Anders

>> JA
>> I equate the Higgs field with the pattern of Essence and of Quality.
>> >  Or just the beginning of gospel of St John: "In the beginning was
>> >  the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
>> >
>> >  Flat dog ... no Good.
> There is no question that followers of Judeo-Christianity believe God is
> their uncreated source.  The question I have for the MoQists is: Is Quality
> your God?  I ask this because, epistemologically, there can be no quality
> without a conscious agent.  Which means that Pirsig's Quality cannot be the
> primary source, hence cannot be man's creator.
>
> > From my perspective, it is the human individual who determines what is
> 'Good' and establishes a social morality to support this value.  Mark, on
> the other hand, rejects the need for a primary source and posits Quality as
> the creator and differentiator of existence.  I view this ontology as
> illogical and nihilistic, since it avoids the first principle of
> metaphysics: A primary Source is essential because 'Nothing can come from
> nothingness.'  It also slights the most significant power man possesses--the
> freedom to choose (and act on) his own values.
>
> Aside from speculative conclusions based on physical theories such as Higgs
> Field, where do you stand on this metaphysical issue?
>
> I appreciate your interest in this discussion, J-A, and look forward to your
> contributions.
>
> --Ham
>