[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> When you state that such things have been mapped by physicists,
> let me clarify.  Physicists observe phenomenon.  From this they
> create a logic or system to provide meaning to their observations.
> This logic arises out of their empirical observations, and such logic
> did not exist before that.  In this way, the logic is created to fit their
> observations.  This is what the intellect does, it creates, it can not
> reveal, that is impossible.

I would say that the "logic" scientists create is the empirical method. 
It's the application of conventional logic to explain empirical phenomena as 
cause-and-effect events.  By this means they fit their observations to 
logical premises so that their conclusions make sense.

> To explain the real nature, you are asking me to create an object, of
> rigorous ontology as you use for your absolute essence.  I still find
> this difficult and am working on it with your help.  Let me use the
> following example.  Words can be considered objects.  When I use
> such objects to reveal a picture to you, are you able to see the picture?
> In other words, are those words the picture?  The objects of the
> universe are similar.  The objects of the universe are not the universe,
> they are descriptions of the universe.  In the past I have described the
> real nature to be Intent.  I know this does not satisfy you, However,
> this word is illuminating for me.

I might accept Intent in your ontology if you could identify the "intender". 
However, I have a problem understanding intent as the "nature (i.e., 
essence) of reality", if that's where you're going.  So far you seem to be 
making a case for Quality as the "active agent" of creation.  Since one 
would expect what is created to represent the will or intention of a 
creator, I can only assume you have assigned that role to Quality, thereby 
rejecting man as the value agent.  (You do understand that as I don't 
subscribe to the view that Quality (Value) can exist independently of man, 
I'm just playing along with you while you postulate your ontology.)

> Patterns of Quality is a descriptive term which is not reality's real
> nature, I do not find it a very useful concept.  How is it possible to
> encompass real nature with a description?  I can describe a baseball
> game till I go blue, but is that the real nature of the baseball game?
> Do you see my difficulty in providing you with a satisfactory answer?

What I'm asking you is simply what reality consists of.  What is its basic 
nature or 'quiddity'?  (This should be easier than defining the nature of a 
baseball game.)

> Quality creates for us through the interaction of the environment
> with our brains.  Of course it is much more complex than this,
> but I think this answers your question.  Logical descriptions can
> be given for other forms of creation, and such logic is always
> changing to maintain meaningfulness.  As I constantly say, our
> awareness of reality is a creative process.

You say "our" awareness is a creative process, yet you make Quality the 
creator.  I see some inconsistency here, Mark.  If Quality is creating our 
experiences, thoughts, feelings, and judgments, what is left for US to do? 
We're back to that forced virtual projection again.  I happen to believe 
that man is a free agent ... the choice-maker of his world.  Where is that 
freedom in your ontology?

> You ask if we are passive observers of what is occurring between
> our brains and the environment.  In many ways we are, and this is a
> purpose of Zen training.  That is, to be aware of this.  However, as
> you may remember, I bring in the concept of free will.  One of the
> bases of Quality, as I have created through appropriate logic, is that
> everything has free will.  It doesn't just start with our brains, since
> there is no mechanism within just the brain to do this. However, the
> brain does have free will, just like everything else, from the photons
> to the planets.

Sorry, Mark, but as a physicist you should know better than to impute "free 
will" to inanimate objects.  Have you forgotten the cosmic laws of 
magnetism, gravity, and opposing forces?   I just scolded Dan Glover for 
doing the same thing.  It's the animistic superstition of the Neanderthals.

> Just so that you don't become hyperbolic about this, free-will does
> not mean that everything becomes completely random (although it
> may be just that, and we have gotten used to it and consider it normal),
> but there is tendency in Quality, and harmony.  Many consider this
> tendency to be circular or linear, but I prefer the harmonic motion of
> a wave function.  Planets operate in high Quality by circling the sun,
> but it is their choice to do so.  Yes we do have an active role to
> choose between one quality or another.  Each individual nerve in our
> heads has the same choice, and each sodium atom as it crosses the
> nerve membrane, and so forth.  Quality unfolds and has no preset
> destination, it is a complex series of decisions.

If I didn't know you better, I'd complain rhat you were pulling my leg.  Do 
you really expect me to believe that planets and electrons "choose" their 
orbits?

[Ham, previously]:
> Finally, if Quality is the primary source, does it embody the good, as 
> well
> as the mediocre and the bad, or is this a "corruption" of Quality by an
> imperfect knower?  And if the former, why call it "quality" in the first
> place?  Why not just chalk it up to the vagaries of a pluralistic 
> universe?

[Mark]:
> Good and evil are manners in which we create an objective world.
> If I were to say that Quality is both good and evil, I would be making
> Quality subordinate to my objectification.  However, if I get the gist
> of your question, my answer is "yes" it embodies both good and evil,
> and the notion of a "corruption".  Perfection is yet another subject,
> and I have to assume perfection, otherwise things would be different.
> A lot of decisions have gone into bringing this exact moment together.
> There is no imperfect knower, for such a thing would have to assume
> a better way of knowing.  What would such a thing be?

"There is no imperfect knower"??   Well, then you're talking to one, since I 
don't know how you can say this!  I am unaware of any perfect knower, and if 
there were one, we would have no need for philosophy.  Kindly explain why an 
imperfect knower "would have to assume a better way of knowing."

> I am not describing a pluralistic universe, but just the opposite.
> The reason the word Quality seems appropriate as a symbolic finger
> pointing, is that everything contains qualities.  The sum total of all
> of this is Quality.  I suppose I can call it anything I want, but that
> would not be very useful in a discussion.  By using the term Quality,
> I am trying to point at what I see.

Reality isn't what you "call it"; it's what IS.  That's why I call it 
'Essence'.  As I understand your Quality, it is an aggregate of 
differentiated qualities.  Again we have Quality containing subsets of 
itself, which you previously agreed was illogical.

I don't mean to discourage you, Mark, but I would respectfully suggest that 
you think this through a bit more -- at least enough to address my 
questions.

Essentially bewildered,
Ham