[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

Sure, as soon as you provide the evidence for your statement.
I've never insinuated there is no such thing as evidence.  
 



On Jun 13, 2011, at 11:38 PM, X Acto wrote:

> provide evidence of that
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 11:26:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] cloud of probability
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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


 
___