[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[118]

Hi Joe,
As I have said before, I see math as one form of metaphysics.  Some
people like to use words, others like to use equations.  But in the
end, it is a description (and explanation, if you will) of "what is".
There is not fundamental difference between math and language except
perhaps in the definitions themselves.  Language is a little more
fuzzy in terms of definitions than math, but they are both supposed to
do the same thing.

At the begining of the 1900's Russell and another guy wrote Principia
Mathematica, which is philosophy in mathematical format.  I do not
think it was much of a success though.  Some people are not good at
the strict logic of math.  They prefer the fuzzy.  I do to for that
matter, it is more fun.

To answer your question, I do not think that a definition is the
arbiter for reality.  It is just a description, not the reality
itself.
The word dog is not the dog itself.  An equation for a photon is not
the photon itself.  A book on the titanic does not have to sink.  MoQ
is not the thing it is describing.  When we use the word sq, that is
sq, but not what it is describing, that is DQ.

Let us not confuse what we talk about with the thing that we are
talking about.  SQ is used to represent something that is not sq.  DQ
is a two letter acronym that has nothing to do with DQ.  DQ cannot be
found on a page.  The representation of SQ by sq can only be pointed
towards, it does not exist in our heads.  We would be kind of top
heavy if it was.

The only time we create sq is when we conceptualize a representation
of somthing.  That something is NEVER sq, it can't be.  Let us not get
too lost in our heads, there is a real world out there, go out and
enjoy it without thinking you are sqewing with it!

cheers,
mark

On 2/8/12, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Mark and all,
>
> Physics and metaphysics!  DQ/SQ is a format for the reality we know.
> Definable SQ, indefinable DQ.  The change in individuality in evolution
> formats individuality beyond the mathematical logic of individuality for
> intelligibility.  If individuality becomes the format of intelligibility
> there is no discernible difference for order than the reality it formats and
> evolution is meaningless.
>
> The defined change in individuality in math from 0 to 1 removes the
> possibility of a metaphysical intelligibility of evolution where 1 is
> different from 1.  The logic of math twists the statement of metaphysics.
> The format of evolution opens its own logic gate DQ/SQ
> indefinable/definable.
>
> I am unclear how you conceptualize the reality of definition becoming the
> arbiter of reality DQ/SQ?  Can I move on to an evolutionary concept of DQ/SQ
> for metaphysics?  I prefer observation to definition.  SQ is individuality.
> DQ is indefinable.
>
>
> On 2/7/12 2:31 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you are sure
>> about DQ/sq, then you can move on to other things.  No need to dwell
>> on things you are sure of.
>
>
> 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
>