[MD] cloud of probability

[X Acto]

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 2:15:42 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] cloud of probability



Marsha:

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


Ron:
Interesting comment considering that you seem to have the point of view that 
there
is no such thing as "evidence".



,,








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



___


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