[MD] MOQ and Completeness Theories (Sorry, Godel.)

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> very correct Dan,But wat it probably really is, is a rechewing/rehashing of
> the annotations again.

Hi Adrie

Yes, you're right.

>Adrie:
> The part on freedom will and choice.
>
> What the work is telling us,is that free will is not in conflict with the
> metaphysiks of Quality
> as long as it is not in coflict with the patterns of the bigger frame of
> nature itself
>
> free will does not work on the patterns of evolution,science or nature.

Dan:
I tend to agree with you here.


>Adrie:
> Think simply of electricity.
> We can have the freedom and the will to use it freely, or to reject it
> totally.
> However we cannot de-invent it by an act of free will or choice,but John
> keeps ridiculing it
> by moving it into a reduction ad absurdum. or by hashing it away in some
> homebrew-drivel.

Dan:
It is curious that Nicola Tesla invented the electric motor over a
hundred years ago and yet it has never been improved upon, don't you
think?

>Adrie:
> think of the pattern of life, as in choice to live or to die by act of free
> will or choice.
> Free will in this example only will count for the individual, not for the
> collective conciousness
> pattern as a total.

Dan:
I am not sure there is such an entity as a collective consciousness.
Remember, in the MOQ, social patterns are not a collection of
individuals.

>Adrie:
> Not thinking about the ocean by act of free will or choice, will not make it
> to dissapear.
> You have the free choice to swim or to dive in the ocean, even to swallow a
> part of it,..
> but denying the ocean by an act of choice or free will is insane.Nothing
> else.

Dan:

Agree.


>Adrie:
> Additionaly,Dan, i agree that determinism as a tool is part of the moq,but
> used as a
> laserscalpel in the hands of a geniouss and surely not to be handled as a
> blunt axe
> in the hands of an idiot.
> If John's basic set-up is to be derived from a limp inductive/deductive
> reasoning, we will not have concluding determinisme, or correct determinism
> a such.
>
> Nobody will get anywhere, by simply creating own variables and observables.
> Correction,you will only get away with them , if they make sense.

Dan:
Yes. Only if they make sense. That is right.

>Adrie:
>
> Sorry for my flaming up Dan, ..will make it up to you.

Dan:
Don't worry about it, my friend. I know where you are coming from.

Adrie:
> Thx for reading.

Dan:
Always a pleasure!

Dan