[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[118]

Hi Ham,
I think it is my turn here, I have gotten a bit lost with all these
posts with similar titles that have nothing to do with what is being
discussed.  I don't have a problem with that, I just forget where I am
in them, if at all.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark --
>
> 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.

[Mark]
We may differ here.  My experience is that we observe something, and
then we create a logic to describe it.  So the observation comes first
followed by the logic.  From that comes prediction.  If new data does
not fit the prediction, then a new logic is created.  No formal system
in science is ever complete, but it keeps on growing with our
imagination.  Often when a theory is accepted, there are those who do
everything they can to make the observations fit the logic.  While
this is not uncommon, eventually the logic fails.  Current logic in
things such as the big bang, and evolution are constantly under
reconstruction.  It used to be thought that things learned in this
life could not be passed on to our offspring.  It is now thought that
they can (epigenetics).  The big bang theory has had to expand to
support data to the point where it really does not make sense anymore.

In the same way that observations can be interpreted to fit theory,
theory is changed to fit observations.  Much of empirical science
depends on how one interprets the data, and opposing views can result
from the same set of data.  There is much more subjectivity in science
than you may be aware of.
>
>
> 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.)

[Mark]

Yes, Ham, humor me for a little while.  It helps me think.

Is it not possible to have Intent without an intender?  Can we have
expansion without an expander, or direction without a director?  What
intent means to me is similar to drive or will.  As humans we are
imbued with will from the moment we are born, it does not arise from
us.  We cannot create it, since there is no place to create it.

We cannot communicate with ducks, and they cannot with us.  So which
one is a better value agent?  (the correct answer is neither).

I have trouble imagining Quality in an anthropomorphic way.  That is
as something with human attributes.  The only time it does have such
attributes is when it is being expressed in humans.  So active means
something different to me than the way you are using it.  I assume
that the sun is the active agent of sunlight, and that a tree is the
active agent of an apple.  So if we point to the active agent of
everything (that we are aware of), yes, that would be Quality.  What
we see as reality is the appearance of Quality.

You are correct that I do not believe that man is a value agent.  I do
not believe that man is the measure of all things.  Man expresses
measurements, but does not create them.
>
> 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.)

[Mark]
I prefer a non-material answer, as I think you do.  One of the reasons
that I find your ontology compelling is that it has some similarities
to Vedic knowledge.  In such literature, as explained to me simply by
the Equations of Maya that we have discussed, reality is composed of
projection, veiling, and revealing.  But, we have been over that.  My
quick answer would be that our reality is composed of the interaction
of the environment with our brains.  The sum total of reality can be
considered as similar interaction.  This is what is meant by
co-dependent arising.  However, you may agree with me that this does
not explain anything, and only defers the answer.  So I look towards
what governs such interaction, and again I would see that as Quality,
since quality is expressed in all reality's attributes.


If you want a materialist answer, then I have no idea.  According to
physicists, it can either be quantum foam, or else we live in a
holographic universe where all data is stored around the outside.
Both theories are interesting.  There are, of course, many other
"theories".

>[Mark previously]
>> 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.
>
[Ham]
> 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?

[Mark]
Yes, it would appear that there is some logical inconsistency there,
the way you put it.  I would simply point out that Quality and I are
the same thing.  (I mean that metaphysically of course and not as some
kind of boast.)  However, since Quality appears to be the greater of
the two (I am only one small human), I attribute it to the larger
Quality.  I am just one eye of Quality.  I know this probably does not
make much sense, so I will have to think of a better way to put it.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

 What to you is the fundamental difference between a man's brain, and
a river or a beehive?  It is all matter put together in different
ways, and interacting through communication.  So, how is it that we
have free will and nothing else does?  I certainly do not believe in
some kind of divine spark provided to us by some supernatural being.
We are chemicals all thrown together in a specific way through a
process of self-assembly.  So I would say that your conception of man
being the only thing with free will, to be higher in the superstition
category.  Tell me Ham, how does free will come about?  What are its
components?  Why does only a jumbled up mass of nerves and glial cells
have it?  We take the frontal lobes out of a human and you are left
with a zombie.  Does that mean we have taken away his free will with a
simple slice of the knife?  Where does free will reside, is it a
protein?

Just because you have created an elaborate system using words and
concepts (magentism etc.) does not mean that you have come any closer
to what is behind the cosmos, all you have done is create some
structure that has meaning to you.  A planet could care less of your
invention.
>

>
> 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?

[Mark]
Yes, as much as we "choose" anything.  Think about it, where does your
choice come from?  Does it start at the nerve level?  Why start there?
 Do you think that our choices come from non-material places.  If
something is painful, do you choose it to be?  Do you continue to have
a chooser when you are asleep?  If not, then is choice a function of
brain activity?  If so, then what part of the brain controls the rest
of the brain?  Or, are we telepathically controlling this body from
another planet?  Tell me Ham, where does free-will come from?  And,
how did we get to be so special?
>
> [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 previously]:
>>
>> 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?
>
[Ham]
> "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."

[Mark]
I can see that this concept is a tough one.  I guess it boils down to
what perfection is.  Something is imperfect if it could be better.
What defines better?  This, of course, gets to the heart of Quality.
If I were to be teleological, I could say that Quality goes towards
better, so the future is always better than the past.  But this would
be like saying that a mouse is better than a dinosaur.  In the moment,
which is timeless, there is no better.  Therefore everything must be
perfect as it unfolds.  I could of course twist this into all sort of
silly circles.  So, how about if we drop this topic for a little
while?  My bad.
>
>
> 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.

[Mark]
No, you are right, reality is not what you call it, words are simply
analogies.  I do not think I implied that (of course I snipped my
statement, so who knows (heh, heh)).  I preferred your question
concerning Quality being active.  As I have suggested in other posts,
matter is a metaphor for Quality.  So Quality is not made up of itsy
bitsy little pieces of Quality.  I think this is a difficulty in this
forum when people talk about static quality as being objects.  Objects
have quality, they are not quality. We mistake what Quality presents,
as forms that contain quality.  This would be like mistaking a shadow
for the real object (but not exactly like that, of course).   I would
prefer to say that Quality is an expression which can come in many
different forms.
>
> 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.
>
[Mark]
I am rarely discouraged, perhaps I am not smart enough to be.
Hopefully I have spun this into enough circles to encourage further
discussion.

Still trying,
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
>