[MD] cloud of probability

[John Carl]

>
>
> 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 (with me snipping out the smarm)


> 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:

Well then dave, pray tell what is NOT either "an idea from Physics or an
idea used by physicists"?   We all live in a physical reality, from which
all our ideas are derived.  Denoting one particular brand of concepts
"physical" makes absolutely no sense to me at all.  What isn't?


>
> 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.
>

John:

Ok fine.  Nothing surprising in any of this -  all  obvious.  I've
challenged you to go a bit deeper and consider where dictionaries come from,
but that, like this, is probably all just a waste of time because you are
not a searcher, dave.  You're an expounder.

dmb:


> But there must always be a discrepancy between concepts reality because the
> former are static and the latter is dynamic.


John:

Now that IS arguable.  Concepts mirror reality, and thus to the extent that
reality is dynamic, so are the concepts which picture it.  Dividing concepts
and reality sounds like you're getting pretty close to a correspondence
theory of truth, which I thought you'd rejected.  Furthermore, nothing is
absolutely static - only relatively static and when we say "relative" we
mean relative to a mind's perspective.  A mind based in time.  Seems to me
that you're actually embracing SOM, but using different labeling.

dmb:


> 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.
>
>
John:

An easy thing to do, because when it comes down to it, "where do you draw
the line" is an eternal quest and an ongoing process.  We decide what is
static, based upon dynamic intuition.  Some patterns which we first perceive
as completely chaotic, turn out to be stable reactions according to laws.
 It could be argued that the entire thrust of the scientific effort is to
accomplish this task.   Jumping ahead of yourself and arguing for the
fundamental distinction shortcuts this task and turns you into just another
fundamentalist.
An anti-fundamentalist fundamentalist, but hey, that's still a species of
fundamentalism.

I think you oughta  trying stuffing some fun back into your fundament.