[MD] Quality as the fundamental building block of reality

Thu Jan 5 23:57:52 PST 2012

Mark,
Hmm, odd, this is cosmological discussion of inorganic quality. But 
whatever. Randomness in quantum mechanics seems to facilitate the Big 
Bang occuring at any moment, by matter simply teleporting into 
singularity and blowing up. The odds of this happening are simply 
ridiculously low. I'm under the impression that scientifically, the 
physical universe is expanding. It doesn't have enough stuff for gravity 
to cause the contraction. But there are many kinds of universes. How 
about time wave 0?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon#Origins

The physical universe seems currently stable, but the mental universe 
could achieve singularity in just a year, even though I don't know what 
that would even mean. Food for thought! In any case, these cycles are 
parallel and go all ways, it's not just one cycle going bang boing 
whimper bang boing whimper.

It's really too bad that there's an aversion to math on this forum! But 
_I_ don't have an aversion to math! Maybe you would like to do something 
like that with me... maybe...

See: http://www.moq.fi/?p=166

"I find it intuitively obvious that cyclical morality could be 
constructed in such a way that all instances of cyclicality, with 
regards to a rational amount of patterns, are simultaneously taken into 
account. This would require us to forget about the diagrams and take a 
formal approach, which expresses the relations between slots in such 
language that does not specify the number of the slots. Maybe I’m going 
to construct such a formalism, perhaps with someone’s help. No way of 
constructing cyclical morality can be deemed incorrect, but some can be 
deemed unintelligible, and the expressive abilities of intelligible 
instances vary."

I wrote that yesterday and I'm basically calling for a formal approach here.

Actually, my mathematician friend wrote a formal definition for 
undefinability. So we have identified formally one property of DQ, which 
happens to be such a property that precludes the possibility that DQ 
could be proven to have other properties or to not have other 
properties. I've made the interpretations of his formal definition with 
regards to DQ. He didn't touch that stuff. He seems to want to be sure 
he's staying on his turf, that is, doing something what he's sure about. 
But I can't speak for him, that was just a guess! However, he got the 
idea by reading the Diamond Sutra. And before he explained the idea to 
me, I tried to do silly things in metaphysics, such as construct a 
theory very similar to the CTMU by Chris Langan...

Maybe you go to the link I gave... and search for that snippet of text, 
because that's kinda mathematical... id love it if u were interested! 
cant say it better

Anyway, when that friend of mine first heard of DQ in 2006 from me, he 
instantly recognized it as an intuitive variant of Gödel's theorems. But 
he said that observation to me so nonchalantly and in such obscure 
language that I didn't pay much attention to it. So I kept banging my 
head to a wall for two more years! =D Then he told it to me so that I 
would understand. But it was wise, because I was so driven and obsessed 
back then that I couldn't have necessarily understood or believed or 
accepted something like that if it wasn't introduced to me the right 
way... I think it was wise he took two years to think about how he'd say 
something like that to me... a sign of a true friend!

If you like maths, you'll surely be able to discuss with him the stuff I 
don't understand. I have much respect for my friend because he's taught 
me stuff that's difficult to acquire otherwise. Maybe he should write a 
few books if he had the time. I hope I didn't praise him too much! I 
hope you don't think he's some demigod because he, I think, doesn't give 
a damn what others think about him, he just wants the math and the logic 
to be right.

I'm such a fool... I never get the people I want to meet to actually 
meet each other. But no harm in trying! Why am I so hysterical? I'm 
starving. I should go to the grocery store.

I'll try to acquire the formal definition of undefinability 
("nonrelativizable use of a predicate", to be specific) within a week or 
so. My friend lives in the North and I'm going to visit him. We're going 
to check the treatise together and do some other things. I haven't seen 
him in six months.

Actually, to be serious, _if_ you want to do this kind of a thing, now 
is the best opportunity to do it. Because I will soon be in Oulu and I 
can work as the mediator between the two of you. My friend is busy with 
other things so he basically requires my presence in order to focus to 
logic and philosophy, so he might not have time for reading your work if 
I send it later. I'll leave Oulu probably January 14., so prime time 
goes on until then.

However, I'm not a complete dimwit with maths, either. I don't know 
what's your background. I suppose you're better than me. I can't be very 
good because I have little experience of actually operating in that 
abstract universe. That is to say, yes, I have a decent amount of 
experience, but not a lot of it, and I'm still not confident in my 
abilities to prove a theorem. Even in simple sentential logic. 
Obviously, I don't mean truth table proof here, I mean real proof.

-Tuukka

6.1.2012 3:52, 118 kirjoitti:
> 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
>>
> 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
>