[MD] Quality as the fundamental building block of reality

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark,

> Mark:
> I have no intention of dismissing DL who is someone I admire.  As I
> see it, DL's intention is to provide an understanding of Tibetan
> Buddhism to the West.  One way of doing this is to show the
> concordance of scientific thought with Buddhist thought.  There is no
> doubt that the older philosophy begets the newer philosophy.  The both
> originate from the workings of the mind, and cannot therefore be
> fundamentally different.  They differ simply in the method of
> presentation.  Often this presentation seems to insinuate
> disagreement, but such is not the case.  In my opinion, DL is fully
> aware of this and his placation of the West is more political than
> anything.  This comes with his job, and is very important to the
> survival of his small nation.

Tuukka:
Yeah. People who are prominent -and- living usually must do unpleasant 
things such as politics. They can't live in the intellectual heaven we 
are living in, because people would bother them! Think about it. What if 
Lady Gaga were interested of philosophy and came here to discuss? 
Everyone would be... well... excuse me... but too fucking interested of 
that! Everyone, even people who don't care about philosophy, and mostly 
them. And Lady Gaga is still an artist, so maybe she almost could be 
here if she played her cards right. But Barack Obama? Oprah Winfrey? 
Even Richard Dawkins? Bill Gates? If any of them came here, this place 
would change.

So that's what you get when you're like "the most powerful or successful 
person in the world". You're not really powerful, instead, you're 
surrounded with shackles and behind invisible bars and you'll have a 
hard time figuring out who's interested of you and who's interested only 
of your money, fame and power.

Even Pirsig couldn't come here! Not even if he wanted to. This place 
would just do a somersault, say: "Esseessssweesswes", turn green, say 
bang & whimper and turn into something completely different.

> Mark:
> Yes, this is a good way of putting it.  Try explaining that to an
> investment broker though.  You will probably get a blank dismissive
> stare.

Tuukka:
Let's not make generalizations of the money men. They're a too easy 
target for criticism in the current political and financial situation. 
Yet someone has to do that work. We want it done by people who aren't 
fools, and that's a lot to ask for.

> Mark:
> My Branch of science has changed over the years, but I consider myself
> a biophysical chemist.  My thesis was on energy transfer from the
> biological to the solid state (computers that can taste, if you will).
>   I am happy to do into detail if you have specific questions.
> Currently I work at a company called Amgen, and am developing drugs
> for cancer therapy.

Tuukka:

Okay!

> Mark:
> Yes, I agree.  Buddhism is based on logic or "right thinking".  The
> point is to harmonize different ways of approaching the human
> condition towards the end of self-fulfillment.  A metaphysical
> doctrine is a method for understanding.  It is the proposal of a view.
>   Take for example a "illusion picture" that can either be two faces
> looking at each other, or a challice. Or better yet, a Dali painting
> such as:
>
> http://www.newopticalillusions.com/optical-illusion-art/cup-or-face-optical-illusion/
>
> Can one prove that it is the cup or the face?  Of course not.  The
> point of metaphysics is whether it is useful for one's relationship to
> the cosmos.

Tuukka:
Faulty metaphysical stances lead people to a lot of problems in life and 
even insanity. That's why metaphysics is important, even if its merits 
are hard to see. A proper metaphysical stance in the minds of many 
enough bankers would have prevented the finance crisis, too. This is 
maybe a pointless thing to say, because you can't teach much about 
metaphysics to someone if they are not interested. But I think it's true.

> Mark:
> Well, this is a discussion for another day.  It is not so much that it
> changes, since new interpretations are always available, it is more a
> question of why it changes.  If Buddhism is simply that which makes on
> feel good, it is relativism.  It is a slippery slope.
>
> I find Langan entertaining, at least what little I can understand.
> Self-determinism is determinism that is not determinism as I
> understand it.  I do not appreciate Langan's approach to reality as
> encompassed by words, however.  This is something that Wittgentstein
> tried to do but failed.  However, like I said, I do not claim to
> understand Langan, but I do enjoy his analogies from quantum
> mechanics.

Tuukka:
Langan's merit is to say that reality resembles a context-free language, 
as opposed to a finite state machine. Ecspecially, his merit is to say 
that very clearly compared to how Pirsig and just about everyone else 
has said it. His mistake, like you said, is to say that reality IS a 
context-free language. But there's more to that mistake. I mean, if I 
said only that to Langan, he'd just say I don't understand CTMU. Namely, 
the mistake is as follows. Most of the following is a copypaste.

The original CTMU paper can be found at 
www.iscid.org/papers/Langan/CTMU/092902.pdf , and I will refer to page 
numbers of that paper when explaining what the mistake is. Langan 
believes (p. 49) the CTMU to satisfy the Law Without Law condition, 
which states: "Concisely, nothing can be taken as given when it comes to 
cosmogony." (p. 8)

According to the Mind Equals Reality Principle, the CTMU is 
comprehensive. This principle "makes the syntax of this theory 
comprehensive by ensuring that nothing which can be cognitively or 
perceptually recognized as a part of reality is excluded for want of 
syntax". (p. 15) But undefinable concepts (such as Dynamic Quality!) can 
neither be proven to exist nor proven not to exist. This means the Mind 
Equals Reality Principle must be assumed as an axiom. But to do so would 
violate the Law Without Law condition.

The Metaphysical Autology Principle could be stated as an axiom, which 
would entail the nonexistence of undefinable concepts. This principle 
"tautologically renders this syntax closed or self-contained in the 
definitive, descriptive and interpretational senses". (p. 15) But it 
would be arbitrary to have such an axiom, and the CTMU would again fail 
to fulfill Law Without Law.

If that makes the CTMU rubbish, then Russell's Principia Mathematica is 
also rubbish, because it has a similar problem which was pointed out by 
Gödel.

An even more formal approach to the problem can be taken. I hope to be 
able to publish the work of my friend on this topic within a week or so.

-Tuukka