[MD] Quality as the fundamental building block of reality

[118]

Hi tuukka

On 1/5/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> 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
>

True, inorganic quality.  But that is just a nominal separation that
we make for the purposes of presentation.  No reason to think it is
any more or less than any other kind of quality.  From a chemist's
point of view, everything is inorganic quality.

There are different theories on the universe, all will be shown to be
wrong at some point, for that is how science works.  Something such as
an expanding universe exists for a while as a kind of societal
consensus (that would be a society of cosmologists), and then a better
idea comes around.  Therefore, to base any metaphysics on current
interpretations of science is fraught with difficulties.

What I am referring to is the theory of the expanding and contracting
universe which is currently gaining steam.  I read a book on it
recently, but I forget the title and author.  it was a contemporary
cosmologist.  The reason I brought it up was to present a circular
theory of everything using modern physics.


> 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.

Well, we do have 2012 don't we...  I am fond of reading people such as
Terrence McKenna if I want to get far out into the metasphere.  I have
been studying up on the galactic alignment theory for 2012.  The sun
comes in between the center of the galaxy and the earth.  Whatever,
huh?  The Mayan Baktun calendar ends when the sun enters the dark
cleft of the milkyway (as seen from earth), in Sagitarius.  Whatever.
Just another year, but it is fun to read about.

I am sure you have heard of the Noosphere...

>
> 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

Wow, that looks fun, I like the diagram.  I am going to have to study
it to see if I can add anything.  To be honest, you make some leaps
that have lost me, so I may ask for clarification once I have read it
several times.  What is moq.fi?
>
> "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.

Cool, I am for any formal approach to see if we can develop something
interesting.  Sometimes formal approaches lead one to non-intuitive
conclusions (like the concept of space-time) which can be revealing.

That a particle becomes "real" on measurement seems pretty trivial to
me.  What we do with any knowledge is similar to creating
constellations.  We connect the dots in meaningful ways.  The
particles of quantum mechanics are created by the math that supports
them (rules of dot connection).  A particle needs to be measured
before it can actually become a particle in QM.  It is simply one of
the required components.  So the particle does not exist before this
simply because it is not finished.  Therefore this entanglement is a
property of how the formalism was set up.  It is nothing mystical or
magical.  Just the way we do things.  All in my opinion of course.

Some other thoughts.  You describe two separate presentations of time.
 This was dealt with by Godel who described "T" which was intuitive
time, and "t" which was the time used for measurement.  He showed that
the two times are not the same.  If we do assume that they are the
same, then intuitive time must disappear.  I am wondering if you can
make use of that.  This was all published in a volume of philosophy
dedicated to Einstein.  I forget the title though.

Are you familiar with the theory of the holographic universe?  This is
a presentation where all infomation for our hologram is encoded in the
outer surface of the universe.  This theory is gaining credibility,
and seems to fit in with your quoting of the bits of information.  it
may have relevence.
>
> 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...

Again, I do not see anything unusual about undefinability.  Ultimately
nothing can be defined because there are not enough words.  If I were
to define "dog" to you, I would have to include all the dogs that I
have seen, the noises they have made, the scratches the have given me,
and all the other dogs that other people have described to me and that
I have read about.  There are just not enough words.  In the same way,
there are not enough words to define DQ.  Every definition is an
approximation.  DQ is "defined" in Lila.  But yes, like everything
else, it is an approximation.  Like I said to Joe, defintionitions of
reality are like trying to pick up the ocean with a net.
>
> 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

Yes, I will give it a ponder and ask some questions since it seems a
bit confusing to me.  I think some of that is in the words you use.
>
> 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!

Yes, Godel, one of my heroes.  Another one I do not understand much
of, so I have to read distilations.  I gave dmb a good reference which
was about the walks that Godel used to take with Einstein.  It is
something about the end of time (a Google would work).  Like every
book I read I had to return it to the library.
>
> 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.

Well, if he likes Godel, he knows that there are some things in math
that can never be proven.  So I guess he can't always 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.

Well, I am probably about the same as you in math.  I use it in
science, but just the simple stuff, some calculus every now and then.
It is stuff like set theory and topology that I like to read about,
since it is like philosophy.  My begining approach for MoQ was on the
lines of calculus:  Quality = f(sq) m f(DQ), where m is an operator.
How we can describe the interaction of DQ and sq was a question I put
out, but did not get much response.  I have not doubt that they can be
said to interact, but what is a useful way to present this.  That DQ
becomes sq and visa versa is too simple, and does not really describe
anything useful.  By the way, Quality had the "units" of "separating"
and/or transformational widgets.  This was difficult since I did not
have too many models to work from.

  So, how, in your opinion do DQ and sq interact to deliver Quality?
That is, using the artificial split of Quality into two components,
how does this work?  In a previous post to you that I began with Hi T.
I described the incorporation of IQ (Interactive Quality).  But that
is as far as I have got.  Give this question to your friend.

No spell check done on this post since Google seems to have changed it
appearance and spellcheck is no longer available.  Since I write as
the thoughts come, I am sure there are many errors.  Sorry, but I am
lazy.
>
Cheers,
Mark
>
>
>
>>> 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
>>
>
> 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
>