[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

Greeting Dan, 


On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:28 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> Greetings again Dan,
>> 
>> On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:35 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:55 PM, Dan Glover 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...
>>>> 
>>>> Dan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Dan,
>>> 
>>> There are times when RMP uses words and concepts that go beyond the dictionary definition,
>>> and dictionaries differ,  for instance there are words in German that do not have an equivalent
>>> in English.
>> 
>> The culture of physicists might have a much broader understanding and definition of 'gravitation'
>> than contained in a standard dictionary definition.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> When I suggested to look it up, I didn't necessarily mean to use a
> dictionary. The Internet is a wonderful tool for looking up all manner
> of things we're not sure of.

Marsha:
About the words that RMP uses uniquely for the purpose of explaining the 
MoQ?  For instance, if you lookup 'quality' you will find no reference to it being 
divided into static or dynamic components, or it representing reality.  -  I'lll use 
the internet as an initial source, but I don't consider it a finite resource.  


>> Marsha:
>> There may be differences even between American and British definition of words.
>> For an Buddhist culture, the definition for 'reification' means treating any functioning
>> phenomenon as if it were a real, permanent 'thing, rather than an impermanent process,
>> while it seems to be a more limited definition in an English dictionary.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> I am guessing if you asked people living in a Buddhist culture what
> "reification" means, most of them would look at you funny.

Marsha:
I don't know.  Taken any surveys lately? If so, you would know that 
answers depend on the questions asked. 
know.  


> Dan:
> 
> As to differences in the definitions of words in different cultures,
> yes. There are differences. But those can be taken into account. We do
> that all the time.

Marsha:
Do we?   You get that from the internet, or do you spend hours in 
your local university library?  


> 
> Dan:
> 
> That doesn't mean we have to resort to nonsense
> though.

Marsha:
And the 'nonsense' remark is what?  My point was that 
patterns are more than definitions.  



Marsha 

 
___