[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

Marsha: 

And you seem to have the point of view that something 
generalized is true.   






On Jun 13, 2011, at 9:33 PM, X Acto wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- 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. 


 
___