[MD] Quality as the fundamental building block of reality

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
Yes, I knew what you meant.  It is only a problem if we need finality
of some kind.  I am in favor of the growing theory of the "pulsing"
universe.  That is, due to dark energy accumulation, the universe
collapses and then expands again as it is now.  This is a never ending
cycle.  No need for beginings.

As you know both Hinduism and Buddhism ascribe to the circular nature
of life.  This is perhaps the simplest recursive system.  In that
system, the circle begins with death as the first link in the chain.
So, I suppose we will end at the begining.

At one point I was trying to develop a formulaic model for MoQ.  But
this did not go too far since there was some aversion to math in this
forum.  Evil Math!

The way in which MoQ is presented in Lila is a systems approach.  I
would say that you can include DQ, you just have to figure out how.
Everything can be expressed with logical ideas, we just have to make
them up.  We have only just started as the human race.  There is
nothing self-defeating about logic.  It may be a very different form
of logic, but just look where Godel took his logic!

Mark

On 1/5/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
> sorry,
> turtles all the way is not a logical fallacy. It's just a computational
> problem akin to being stuck to an endless loop, which repeats the same
> procedure over and over again. But maybe if static quality is a
> recursive structure, it isn't exactly a "qualities all the way down"
> argument but instead some kind of a recursive system. I am a system
> builder and do not speak of Dynamic Quality because it cannot be put in
> a system. I do this because I know DQ, not because I wouldn't know it.
> But such knowledge does not belong to a system and cannot be expressed
> with logical language. Many people are artists and poets but few are
> taking a systematic approach to the MOQ. The closest I will go to DQ so
> far is to give a formal definition of undefinability. But I can't do
> that yet. I'll do it later.
>
> I mean, even though everything a computer processor can do is a tick, it
> doesn't mean the sequence of ticks is a "qualities all the way down"
> argument, because the repetition of ticks is not meaningless. The ticks
> do not perform the exact same function. Maybe that's what you meant with
> "qualities all the way down" instead of "quality all the way down", but
> then, what are the different qualities?
>
> -Tuukka
> 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
>