[MD] cloud of probability

[118]

Hi Marsha,

I was trying to understand what you mean by process.  I suppose this
could be considered static since gravitation is fixed at a particular
time.  It is my understanding that gravity represents the attraction
of one thing for another.  We all exude gravity.  So that is one of
its compositions.  I would consider it a process since it acts
accordingly.  Other part of its composition are the laws which it
appears to follow.  Gravity also warps space depending on its
intensity, so warping is a property.  Gravity acts on all things
including light, so that may be another.

Can't think of any more for now.

I remember asking you what the opposite of a chair is, many years ago.
 You replied that it is a non-chair.  This still does not make much
sense to me, but it may be moving into Ham's metaphysics of Essence.
So that which is opposite of Gravity would be negated for a short
while into the world of relativity (no pun intended).

I am not sure if gravity follows the same laws as quantum mechanics.
There has yet to be a theory of everything.  So far, cosmology and
quantum mechanics are irreconcilable.

Thanks for your answer,

Mark

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:55 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> going to clean this up a little
>
>
> Hello again Mark,
>
> If you were suggesting that 'gravitation' refers to a particular static pattern
> of value, what exactly comprises (every last bit of it) that pattern?
>
> Can such a question be answered?  If yes, what is the answer?  If no,
> why not?
>
> You might understand why, at the moment, I think the best answer would be:
> all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize the pattern
> as a cloud of probability.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 4:37 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> You ask a strange question.  'Gravitation' is a word; It  may be the name of a cat,
>> dog or horse, or a conceptual theory.  At the very least it participates in a linguistic
>> process.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:31 PM, 118 wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> Is gravitation a process?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:58 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is my (conventional/static) definition of static patterns of value:
>>>>
>>>> Static patterns of value are processes: impermanent,
>>>> interdependent, ever-changing. (Not objects. Not subjects.
>>>> Not things-in-themselves.)  Overlapping, interconnected,
>>>> ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist
>>>> and change within a stable, predictable pattern.
>>>>
>>>> Here's my (conventional/static) definition of reification:
>>>>
>>>> Reification means treating any functioning phenomenon
>>>> as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an
>>>> impermanent process."
>>>>
>>>> Reification represents how the common man, and many scientists,
>>>> academics and even philosophers conceptualize.  It evolved as a tool to
>>>> facilitate some kind of betterness.  But it is flawed and of course the MoQ
>>>> and help rectify the flaw.  I have suggested that reification is either a part
>>>> of the conceptualization process, or that there is a interdependency
>>>> between conceptualization and reification.
>>>>
>>>> But, of course, you are correct Mary.  Both 'conceptualization' and
>>>> 'reification' are static patterns of value, conventional (relative) truths.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>