[MD] Quality as the fundamental building block of reality

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark,

7.1.2012 2:21, 118 kirjoitti:
> 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.

Tuukka:
Okay... I just didn't know the cyclical universe thing is gaining 
popularity. The last time I studied cosmology the "we just gonna get 
entropy and thermal death" -model was popular. I didn't mean to talk 
about time wave 0 in that case. Cause I thought the eternal expansion is 
right and that you're suggesting something strange by talking about the 
expanding and contracting model. I knew it existed but I thought few 
people believe in it. For a dilettante like me, it does make more sense 
though.

Anyway, I thought you're suggesting something strange with the expanding 
and contracting model, so I wanted to suggest something even more 
strage. I guess that's how my mind works lol

I was not really laughing, actually, had poker face.

> Mark,
> 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.

Tuukka,
Maybe it will be such an endpoint that nobody notices and it doesn't 
matter so much. Maybe no endpoint, except the ones we choose to believe in.

> Mark,
> I am sure you have heard of the Noosphere...

Tuukka,
No, but read a Wikipedia article on it just now.

>
> Mark:
> 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?

Tuukka:
Feel free to ask questions.
MOQ.FI is a domain I registered less than six months ago. The website is 
not quite finished, so I haven't made any kind of a general announcement 
to the effect of: "Hey! Here's a MOQ website. Come see it!"

> Mark:
>> "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.

Tuukka:
I'm fine with that. Wave-particle duality and all.

> Mark:
> 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.

Tuukka:
That's very interesting! If I can get my friend Timo on that, he'll sure 
do a better job on it that I would. If not, well, I'll do a good enough 
job if I get enough time, but it could easily be like five years and I 
could get distracted and all...
Mention the title if it pops back into your mind...

> Mark:
>
> 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.

Tuukka:
Nope. Holographic universe. Interesting namedropping... I'll have to 
write this all stuff down before it gets lost in the archive and hard to 
retrieve... it's 0:39 AM here now and one could ask whether I should 
even be doing this kind of stuff at this time. Hope I can make the notes 
before I go to bed or remember to make them like tomorrow.
> Mark,
> 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.

Tuukka:
DQ isn't defined in Lila in a way that mathematicians or logicians would 
call "well-defined". Undefinability can be defined in such a way.

The thing is, Pirsig's definition of DQ is so different from my 
definition of undefinability that I'm not sure whether I could go around 
saying that's what Pirsig meant. They might be, for conventional intents 
and purposes, the same thing, but I don't feel like saying that's what 
Pirsig meant. I would possibly misrepresent him, or exagerrate his 
capacity of "meaning something but being unable to say it right".

>
>> 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.

Tuukka:
Ha! :D

> Mark,
> 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.

Tuukka:

Hmm. If you're trying to tell how it works, my somewhat educated opinion 
of this is it can't be done. What can be done is to tell what DQ is. But 
it can only be done in such a way that no conventional use of DQ is 
introduced. This is a tricky one. The definition of DQ (or 
undefinability) may have a conventional use, but DQ itself may not.

> Mark,
>    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.

Tuukka:
That's not on my turf, nor on the turf of any conventional man. I'm a 
conventional man.

What's that post? I can't find it.

>
> 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.

Tuukka:
No problem. I don't think all spelling mistakes should be corrected even 
if they are observed. There aren't even so many errors. I sometimes make 
a lot more and don't even care. Or even point to the care of wanting to 
have the deviations from conventional grammar. A conventional man need 
not always use conventional grammar, in spite of his conventionality.

-Tuukka