[MD] cloud of probability

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:59 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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:

No. I said I am guessing. I know I had to look up the term "reify" to
know what it meant. And it seems likely the average person (no matter
where they live) might have to do the same. So if you were to ask a
Buddhist from Tibet what they thought about reification, they might
look at you funny. Or not.

>
>
>> 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:

Well, no. Monty Python was my teacher.

>
>
>>
>> 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.

Dan:

Which leads to confusion and nonsense.

Dan