[MD] The Relativist's journey

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I thought I answered your questions as they came up, but I guess I thought wrong.  My apologies.

Non-locality falls out of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics.  Sociology treats individuals as statistics which means the individual does not exist locally.  It is simply a product of the math used.  Nothing cosmic going on there, unless one is wedded to math.  Then I suppose one would be convinced that the math is reality.

Your "stable pattern are relative only if you want to see them that way.  I do not see them that way.  There is no need to always be comparing everything.  I find that approach to be limited.  But, if you have a love for equations, then I can see your need to equate things.  Each to his/her own.  I do not consider my view to be relative to yours.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Nov 27, 2011, at 10:17 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> There are serious questions, from me and to you, in this post.  They are the sentences with the questions marks at the end.   -  What do you think words are for?  What are you searching for?  What 'facade' are you talking about?  How does the concept of 'unreal' enter into this dialogue?  -  You have generally been ignoring the questions I have presented to you for a long time.  I no longer take your posts to be serious, and no longer feel the need to answer any of them.  
> 
> Btw, Quality may be compared to quantum theory's non-locality.  Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to (that's relative to) other patterns, where patterns have no independent existence.  No hidden variables, only Quality.  
> 
> 
> Marsha  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:17 PM, MarshaV wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha,
>> 
>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:10 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> This is fun.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I suspect a mild form of insanity.   
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 9:44 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:05 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> Well I guess this begs the question "where is the real?".
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> You brought the words "real thing" into the conversation.  When I wrote "There is no real thing.", I could be considering that you meant the word "thing" in an independent, objective sense, or I could be questioning your use of "real" as in an Absolute sense, or both.  Or maybe I should have disregarded your post,,, again.  
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> I suppose I should ask you "independent" from what?  We use the word "objective" to imply detached.  I will agree that we are not detached, and that the word can be dropped if you want.  It is often used rhetorically to provide a meaningful split between the "subjective" and the "objective".  Is this split meaningless to you?  If so, I can avoid using it.  However, if we start to simplify language, the color it brings turns to shades of grey.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> Words are symbols, but perhaps what words convey outside the symbology is real.  
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Haven't the slightest idea what this means.  
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> OK, then let me ask the following thought question: What are words used for?  This may give a better idea.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I do not know for certain.  What do you think?  
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> If one lives in an unreal world, one is always searching.  
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> I live in a provisional, static world interacting with DQ to a varying degree.  I am sorry you are "always searching."  
>>>> 
>>> IMark:
>>> f your world is provisional, what is it provisional to?
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I should have said I live in a conventional, static world.  
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> Such searching is also considered unreal, and meaningfulness is lost.  
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> What are you searching for?   
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> Many things, but the right here right now is real to me.  I see no reason to hide it as if there were something more.  It would seem that you operate within a fake world.  If a word is not real, then what is it?  If provisionality is not real, then where do you find yourself?
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I meant provincial or conventional world.  What _seems to you_ about me is your problem because I cannot related to anything you've written.  
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> What has meaning to you?  
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> It's all Value(Dynamic/static).  
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> Is Value Real to you, or is there something contingent to Value or Quality?
>> 
>> Marsha: 
>> I might repeat the positive tetralemma that Jay Garland put together:
>> 
>> Everything is _conventionally_ real.
>> Nothing is _Ultimately_ real.
>> Everything is both _conventionally_ real and _Ultimately_ unreal.
>> Nothing is either _conventionally_ unreal or _Ultimately_ real.  
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> Is there something behind the facade? 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> What facade?
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> When you say unreal it seems to imply a facade.  Is there then no facade?
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> You brought in the word 'unreal'.  Do you mean Ultimately unreal?  Do you know what you mean??? 
>> 
>> 
>> You've ignored my questions.  I've had enough.  This is too boring.   
>> 
>> 
>> Byeeee.   
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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