[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

On Jun 11, 2011, at 2:16 AM, Dan Glover wrote:

> 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.


Marsha:
An excellant choice!     



>>> 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.

Marsha:
I don't know what to say about this opinion.  Such a limitation I 
could never accept.  I have no problem understanding that patterns 
are greater than words.  


> Dan



Marsha  
 
___