[MD] cloud of probability

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Marsha said:
>>> ...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.
>>>
>>>dmb:
>>>
>>> "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
>>>
>>> "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.)
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> Exactly. Come on, Marsha and Mark. If you want to know what
>> gravitation is, look it up. Or even better, try reading ZMM... or
>> re-reading it, or whatever it takes to get the ideas contained there
>> to sink in.
>>
>> Good God almighty...
>
>Mark:
> Good God indeed.  In ZMM the term "gravity" is mentioned as a ghost.
> There is really no mention of what the term means.
>
> In my opinion, physics is a discipline within metaphysics.  That is,
> it describes a reality of "what is".  As such it falls prey to the
> many issues that any metaphysics does, as presented by RMP.  I have
> read ZMM many times over the years and my copy is well-worn.
>
> If I look up gravitation in the physics of metaphysics, I am presented
> with an equation.  This can be one of acceleration, attraction, or
> potential energy if one uses Newtonian physics.  These are all
> descriptions of a phenomenon, and not of gravitation itself.  In this
> way, gravitation does not exist except through its presentation
> through its effects.  This would be similar to Quality, which can only
> be discerned through its expression, and not directly.
>
> Originally I used the term in order to understand what Marsha meant by
> Process.  Since Gravitation and Quality are similar in their uses in
> metaphysics, I was wondering whether Quality was a process.  What are
> your thoughts on this subject?

Dan:

Well, first of all, I don't think you're grasping the significance of
what RMP is saying about gravity in ZMM, so please allow me to quote a
few lines:

``Oh, the laws of physics and of logic -- the number system -- the principle
of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so
thoroughly they seem real.

``They seem real to me,'' John says.

``I don't get it,'' says Chris.

So I go on. ``For example, it seems completely natural to presume that
gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Isaac Newton. It would
sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity.''

``Of course.''

``So when did this law start? Has it always existed?''

John is frowning, wondering what I am getting at.

``What I'm driving at,'' I say, ``is the notion that before the beginning of the
earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal
generation of anything, the law of gravity existed.''

``Sure.''

``Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not in
anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there was
no space either, not anywhere...this law of gravity still existed?''

Now John seems not so sure.

``If that law of gravity existed,'' I say, ``I honestly don't know what a thing
has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed
every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute of
nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't have. Or a single scientific
attribute of existence it did have. And yet it is still `common sense'
to believe
that it existed.''

John says, ``I guess I'd have to think about it.''

``Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find yourself
going round and round and round and round until you finally reach only
one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and gravity
itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes sense.

``And what that means,'' I say before he can interrupt, ``and what that
means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It's
a ghost! We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down
other people's ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious
about our own.''

``Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?''

``Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as `education.'''

Dan comments:

Now, when we think of gravity (or the law of gravity, they're
interchangeable) we tend to think of a physical process, which is what
you seem to be doing. The meaning of the term "gravity" isn't you
falling down when you trip, though. The meaning of gravity is all in
your head. It is a ghost of reason. It is the result of your
indoctrination, otherwise known as education, informing you on the
nature of the world.

What RMP is getting at in the passages above is that gravity isn't a
physical process. Nor is Quality. The fact that we "know" all about
Newton and gravity makes us very certain about the "external" world
existing apart from our own self. And the MOQ says that the idea that
the world exists is a high quality idea. But it is only an idea. There
is no way to be certain that there really is a world "out there" apart
from the self.

To answer your question: no. Quality isn't a process. It is an idea, a
ghost of reason.

Thank you,

Dan