[MD] The Dynamics of Value

Sun Jan 16 22:01:09 PST 2011

Hi J-A.

[Mark]
Yes, I am sure Quality has been discussed in MD before,  I was
providing my opinion in terms of the depth of each book.  ZMM is much
deeper than Lila, that's all.

Your picture of a stool with one leg is actually a stool with three
legs, two of those are a man's legs.  The point I was trying to make,
but not successfully I guess, is that a stool cannot stand on one leg
or two legs, it requires three.  Now with a little creativity, we can
make a stool stand on one leg if we spin it.  We could say that
Quality is also spinning, and therefore does not need three
components.  These are all of course analogies.  Your analogy is
perfectly valid as are many more in this forum.  Your rhetoric is a
bit more complete than some, which, for me provides higher quality.
Now, four legs is a chair, so I don't know where you are going with
the analogy, but I suppose you are being clever.  You are confusing
your geometry as well.  But, I suppose we can call everything a stool,
why not.

According to Hawking, God created the integers (at least I think
Hawking wrote a book by that title), so you are in good company.  I
prefer fractions because of what they do to reality.

More below...

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jan-Anders <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
>  Mark
>
> The difference of definition of Quality in ZMM vs Lila is discussed earlier
> in MD.
>
> The wholy lowest number of legs on a stool  is 1. That is the number of legs
> in the stool that people milking cows are using.
> http://www.cattlestore.com/p-1422-coburn-strap-on-milk-stool.aspx
>
> What I think is interesting with this example is that it uses absolute
> numbers and explicit characteristics. The number of legs or more the number
> of standpoints in a contact surface is crucial for the affect on the contact
> between the surface and the thing.
>
> 1 leg is supporting a stable heigth. Working in the same direction as the
> leg.
>
> 2 legs are supporting stability in the same direction as the shortest line
> between the two endpoints. Motorcycle and skates.
>
> 3 legs is the best for stools on an uneven surfaces.
> http://chestofbooks.com/crafts/popular-mechanics/The-Boy-Mechanic-1000-Things-for-Boys-to-Do/A-Milk-Stool.html
>
> 4 legs is giving the largest area and best stability on flat surfaces like
> modern floors to the number. Just think about how annoying it is if you sit
> on a restaurant and one of the legs are uneven causing the table to wooble.
>
> A 5th leg is not adding stability in proportion to the cost of a 5th leg.
> On vehicles a 5th wheel causes problem with the dirigibility, how it acts
> when it is turning and like.
>
> There are 6 wheel trucks but in these cases a double bogie system is one
> standpoint supported by 2 wheels on each side to be able to carry a heavier
> load. On a 6 wheel truck still have 4 standpoints for its stability.
>
> Things with more than 7-8 corner standpoints as water towers, radio masts
> and silos can often more be liked as 1 leg system with its main purpose to
> support a stable heigth.
>
> A blanket in the grass can be considered as something with 0 or an infinite
> number of standpoints but is it a stool?
>
> Legs and standpoints are dealing with numbers, low numbers and pure
> integers. It is no idea with a 0.89 leg or a 3.4 wheeled motorcycle... Easy
> stable math.
>
> JA
>
> moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org wrote 2011-01-16 18.06:
>>
>> Hi J-A,
>> Yes, indeed, always on the road to a more perfect union.  I would only
>> disagree with you on the difference between ZMM and Lila.  What can be
>> intuited from ZMM is a bit deeper than that from Lila, concerning
>> Quality.  I think that is why ZMM was so popular.  I find Lila to be a
>> bit superficial in its attempt, in that it sketches a picture that
>> seems too construed.  But, I prefer a narrative approach where I can
>> place myself in the protagonist's place, so it may just be a
>> preference. Perhaps I did not understand Lila.
>>
>> Indeed, three is a holy number, a stool cannot stand on two legs.  The
>> tripods of reality.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>
> About entropy:
>
> moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org wrote 2011-01-16 13.53:
>>
>> Interesting.  By sorting and encoding memory, we are creating
>> potential energy from kinetic.  What was once random (or all zero's),
>> becomes highly ordered with a purpose, that is to encode and release
>> music.  Since we know that energy is mass, and mass does not change,
>> the form of energy must change.  So while there is no additional
>> weight (I am assuming, but my quantum mechanics is not too good),
>> there is a conversion of energy.  A simple analogy would be building a
>> house out of bricks.  The weight of the bricks do not change, but
>> their entropy decreases.  The house then assumes a potential for
>> living in.  The memory creates a potential for generating music.
>>
>> So, we have a conversion of your Pattern, to a form of energy.  You
>> probably already know this, since entropy decreases with pattern
>> formation.  So, if pattern is form of energy, does this change your
>> observations of dynamic quality?
>
> You are right again. It takes energy to change a pattern. But the input
> energy does not convert into pattern. Moving a brick higher, rises it's
> potential energy. But that potential energy is not pattern. It is just
> energy.

[Mark]
I would have to disagree with you.  A house is a pattern formed of
potential energy.  In fact it has the potential for someone to live in
it.  Reverse entropy forms patterns as well which can be considered
potential energy.  I know there is much discussion in this forum about
patterns and unpatterns so I do not really want to get into that.  One
man's pattern is another man's, cigar.  However, with some tweaking, I
can make your triad work for me.

Thanks,
Mark
>
> JA
>
>
> --------
>
> John
>
> Exact. What is the physical weigth of a triangula or just a pattern?
>
> That is why we must separate energy, pattern and value as three aspects of
> any event.
> Energy and mass has weight. Pattern is how the energy or mass is ordered.
> The order or location is independent of the mass.
>
> JA
>
> moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org wrote 2011-01-15 20.01:
>>
>> Jan-Anders,
>>
>> Seems to me, you're magazine is  asking "what is the weight of an idea?"
>>
>> Since that's a fairly weighty question, I take it as self-answering!
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Jan-Anders<jananderses at telia.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> >  Hi Ham and John
>>> >
>>> >  About is-ness and nothingness. Picked this question out from a
>>> > Magazine.
>>> >
>>> >  "What is the weight of the music in an iPod? As we know that there is
>>> > some
>>> >  form of information downloaded into the iPod it must have some
>>> > weight?"
>>> >
>>> >  My answer is: (in some way related to Pirsigs writing of instruction
>>> > books
>>> >  for Fortran computers. Lila. ch. ?)
>>> >
>>> >  Computers have memory. When you load information into it it is not
>>> > adding
>>> >  more mass or energy. The only thing that happens is that you Change
>>> > the
>>> >  information from blank silence into sound. Instead of the zillion
>>> > zero's in
>>> >  a row that is the factory presettings of the memory (silence or
>>> > emptyness)
>>> >  you change the Pattern of the memory into a certain mix of 1's and
>>> > 0's. The
>>> >  physical weight is unaltered but the pattern is altered. Value is
>>> >  independent from the downloaded pattern. The Value depends on the
>>> >  interaction between the iPod and the listener. It could be the
>>> > complete
>>> >  works of Artie Schroeck. In that case silence would be of higher
>>> > value?
>>> >
>>> >  I do not have an iPod. The Value of having an iPod is nothingness to
>>> > me as
>>> >  I still have my stereo equipment and my record collection in good
>>> > condition.
>>> >  Which is somethingness.
>>> >
>>> >  best
>>> >
>>> >  Jan-Anders
>
> 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
>