[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thank you for your post, and I appreciate your logic.  I have some
comments below.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
[Mark Previously]>
>> I have heard the analogy that we dip our ladle into the stream of
>> Quality and get experience (or something similar).  This is a fine
>> analogy, except that it is also true that the ladle, the manner of
>> dipping, and the one doing the dipping is also part of Quality.  In
>> terms of the infinite set theories, I am still working that one out.
>> My example of the "set of all sets", is more just simple set theory.
>> This particular example is similar to a map within a map..., or a
>> reflection of a reflection...  It points to the limits of logic.
>
[Ham]
> I, too, think this analogy (I believe it came from John) is useful in
> understanding how Value(Quality) works to create the appearance of objective
> phenomena.  It is less problematic for me, however, because I do not regard
> "the ladle, the manner of dipping, and the one doing the dipping" as all
> part of Quality.
>
> You admit you are "still working that out".  Well, let me remind you that Bo
> Skutvik encountered a similar problem when he tried to establish Intellect
> as the set of which "intellection" is a subset.  As a specialist in set
> theory, you should know that a systemized set cannot logically contain
> itself as a subset.
> In analyzing this analogy, I submit that if the stream of Quality (what I
> call value-sensibility) is what the ladle is dipped into, the analog for the
> ladle is "sensibility", the manner of the dipping is "experience", and the
> act of dipping is performed by the "cognizant self".

[Mark]
Just to clarify, what I am working out is an analogy from the arena of
infinite set theory and its applications to Quality as I see it.  I am
not a specialist, but what you say is true concerning set theory, as
far as I know.  This is why I bring it up.  I also point to the limits
of logic as it is currently used for this area of math.  It is these
limits that I am addressing.  Math progresses as does any logical
creation.
>
> Moreover, from an epistemological perspective (which is more familiar to me
> than sets), an observer who is posited as "a pattern of Quality" cannot
> possibly experience what he himself is patterned from without nullifying the
> pattern.  This is the principle behind my concept of the "free (independent)
> agent" which I haven't yet succeeded in conveying to you.  Rather than blame
> the "limits of logic" for your quandary, consider the possibility that your
> ontology may be misconstrued.

[Mark]
Believe me, I have been through these circular arguments.  Which is
why I am looking for the appropriate analogy which will help explain
my position.  If we use your logic, and put such logic as the defining
principle, that is, place our ontologies as subservient to the current
logic you profess, then indeed you could say that it is misconstrued.
The purpose is to enable logic to use it as an explanation.  So, the
question is, is the reality you profess subservient to logic, or is
logic subservient to your ontology?
>
> For the sake of dialectical understanding, let's say that the word Quality
> (DQ) is intended to represent "Ultimate Reality" or the Absolute Source.  By
> what logic can a "pattern" be formed from an absolute that is not itself
> absolute?  If Quality is absolute, patterns must be something other than
> Quality.  And, conversely, if the observing subject is a pattern of Quality,
> what the subject experiences is NOT Quality.

[Mark]
As you know, dialectical understanding is a tool which attempts to
reveal a Truth.  Such truth is something that exists, and is waiting
to be discovered.  I do not subscribe to this understanding.  The
approach that you are taking is to create independent principles that
act together.  That is, there is an absolute source, and process of
negation, and an aware being.  All of these things are acting
together.  My approach is to create a single source (primary source,
if you will) which encompasses everything.  This is just a matter of
choice.  But what I have found that if one draws strict demarcations
between separate entities, the logic fall apart, and requires several
assumptions rather than just one.  So my approach is to simplify your
approach.

An ocean can be considered as an absolute, that does not mean that
patterns on the ocean are something other than ocean.
>
> Despite the argument that nothing arises from nothingness, you persist in
> saying there is no need for a primary source.  Don't these examples
> demonstrate that a primary source is not only the answer to your problem but
> the fundamental principle of ontology?

[Mark]
I would just state (again), that Quality can be considered the primary
source.  So, I do have my answer, just not in the way you prefer.
>
> Sorry, Mark, but I couldn't let your thought process abort without pointing
> to a logical solution.

[Mark]
No apology is necessary, I believe I have addressed your logic.

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
> 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
>