[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

Marsha:
You have pulled my comments out of their context, exaggerated and misrepresented 
things I have said through nonsense paraphrasing, and set this up as a contradiction.  
You have no idea what a rational argument is other than it sounds "reasonable" to you.  

And I am still waiting for the evidence for the quote you attributed to me as part of the
contradiction.

You have no idea of what you are talking about.  



 
 
 
 


On Jun 13, 2011, at 1:28 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> dmb said:
> ..."Gravity" is a physical concept, a word with specific meanings. It is NOT an ineffable mystical reality.
> 
> 
> John wonders what a physical concept looks like:
> Is it a concept composed of physical attributes?  I thought it was just an idea - something in a mind.  How can a concept be physical?
> 
> dmb:
> Think about the fact that Newton and Einstein were mentioned in the context of saying "gravity" is a physical concept. 
> It is dawning on you yet? Newton and Einstein are famous for being ________? 
> No? Still don't have it? Okay, instead of fill-in-the-blank, how about multiple choice?
> Newton and Einstein are famous for
> A) messy hair
> B) bad manners
> C) Physics
> No? You still don't see what a "physical" concept is? 
> Okay, I'll just tell you. A physical concept is an idea from Physics or an idea used by physicists.
> 
> 
> John said:
> It's a ghost, dave.  It's only in your head.  That doesn't mean it's not real, after all, everything is only in your head and everything is the only reality you'll ever know, so I don't see what the big deal is, anyway. Except you sure got some hang-up with reality, man.  You insist that your reality is the only possible one, while we all know that the universe is pluralistic. ... And do we all have to conform to your definitions? Even when they're wrong?
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Seems like you and Marsha keep making this same mistake over and over. See, I'm talking about concepts and definitions, not reality. If I say that Marsha is misusing terms and quote Pirsig saying that definitions are the foundation of reason, I do NOT mean to say that proper definitions are reality. If I say "gravity" has a proper definition, I do NOT mean to say that the law of gravity is anything more than a concept. I'm simply saying that Marsha will never be able to communicate effectively without using concepts and definitions properly. And neither can anyone else. This is not a claim about ultimate realties. It's about the english language and the nature of reasonable philosophical discussions. Who thinks the riddle of the universe can be found in a dictionary? Nobody, that's who. But you know what CAN be found in the dictionaries? Definitions. Words. Lots and lots of words. Lots and lots of concepts. And they all relate to each other, mean what they mean in relation to
>  each other. 
> But there must always be a discrepancy between concepts reality because the former are static and the latter is dynamic. The latter is undifferentiated and the former is all chopped up into bits. Those static bits ARE words and concepts. To counter the demand for proper use of terms with quotes about undefined Dynamic Quality is to change the subject from dictionaries to the mystic reality, from reason to mysticism. To confuse these two things is to misunderstand the distinction between DQ and static quality. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		 	   		  
> 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


 
___