[MD] Idealistic static value patterns

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
Yes, I realized that, unless Matt wrote exactly the same thing I did...

n! is simply n factorial which means (as in your case with a,b,c) that
if there are three variables, there are 3x2x1 posibilities in that
power set (for 4 varibles (a,b,c,d) there would be 4x3x2x1 or 24, if I
did the math right).  This is what you got.  I am not sure what the
empty set is supposed to signify.  However, in your web presentation,
you stated that you would subtract the sets containing only a, b, or
c, so you end up with 3 (or 4) combinations.  This made sense to me
because we are speaking of emergent properties, not unvariable ones
(starting properties).

It really doesn't matter to me what the symbols are since I was not
planning to study the set theory (been there done that), and I sure
cannot remember what I had to memorize in the past :-).  So, that is
why I ask for an English translation.  If I am interested in the
result, I will do the math to see what I come up with.

In my Quality metaphysics, Quality is indeed contained by Quality,
only because it makes perfect sense to me.  Of course, I am insane so
I guess it is appropriate.  Quality is an active principle which
generates itself, rather than some denotation for "everything".  If we
simply say that Quality is what contains dq, sq, and rq, then the
meaning of Quality is not what I want it to be.  Whatever, huh?

Quality is that which creates subject and object, or the differences
between things, for example.  It is because of Quality that we do not
live in a world of all the same, which is equivelant to a world of
nothing, since same cannot see same.  This will come in more detail
since I have an obligation to Ham to provide him an explantion using
his Essentialism format.  But, imagine the following:  We do not know
something except that there is something else.  So a mountain is found
only because there is a plain.  So what is it that creates the two
which must juxtapose each other?  It is Quality (and no, Quality does
not create relativity, it is not so simple).  Since what we have is
the "world of appearances", that is, what we sense is a thing's
qualities (like a "big red train", where train is all the other
qualities besides big and red), we must have a mechanism by which
those qualities are created.  Ham states that we as humans create such
values.  My position is that Quality separates us from the other
object thus providing our sense of it.

Imagine two boxers (the human kind) in a ring.  They get all tangled
up holding on and leaning on each other so that they resemble a single
mass.  The referee comes over and pushes them apart so that they can
fight again.  In this analogy, Quality is the referee.

Anyway, it is difficult to explain using our standard Western way of
looking at things and in may ways reverses cause and effect at least
the way we are used to dealing with it.  But, in the "moment" there is
no cause and no effect, because there is not enough time.  The moment
is a timeless point without dimensions.  So, from that perspective it
is possible to reverse cause and effect.

Yes, I am babbling on without much sense.  Lot's of people over here
say that it all sounds intriguiging, but they have no idea what I am
talking about.  They just see me walking around with a smile on my
face all the time.

Cheers,
Mark

On 1/13/12, mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Sorry, I meant Mark, not Matt. :) (Matt is welcome too!)
> Also, the symbols didn't come out quite right in the e-mail. Guess I
> should have sent it in Unicode UTF-8. As a test, I will send this mail
> in UTF-8 and attach the following formulae:
>
>      Modp(q) = q – p⌊q⁄p⌋
>
>      ∀k(k ∈ {1,2,3} ⇒ ∀m(m ∈ ℕ ∩ [1,n[ ⇒ ℘(kIm) ⊆ kIm + 1))
>      ∀k(k ∈ {1,2,3} ⇒ ℘(kIn) ⊆ 1 + Mod3(k)I1))
>
> If you can see the symbols right, ℘ is the power set function, and
> ⌊q⁄p⌋ applies the floor function to q/p. If not, you'll just have to
> resort to the original link...
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> Quoting mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> providing more intuitive explanations is something I could at least do
>> in the book. The web stuff is better as a reference and good because of
>> my insatiable urge to publish at least something all the time, even if
>> it made little sense to non-mathematicians. But first! I gotta make
>> sure I understand the stuff myself, as all of it is not written by me.
>> Your questions, actually, are great practice for this.
>>
>> T = {Tm | 1 ? m ? n}
>>
>> This splits each set T into n patterns. n = 4 is the traditional Pirsig
>> solution.
>>
>>     Nm ? Sm
>>     Nm ? Om
>>
>> Here normative patterns are included in the descriptive patterns. They
>> are supposed to explain the structure of the descriptive patterns.
>>
>> ?(Rm) = Sn ? (m ? 1) ? Om
>>
>> This means that subjective and objective quality emerge from romantic
>> quality in addition to emerging from each other. And like the picture
>> (http://moq.fi/CM-2.png) shows, subsets of subjective quality S emerge
>> from romantic quality R in inverse order compared to subsets of
>> objective quality O. This explains why n = 1 would comprise a dull
>> theory. The inversion of order could not be noticed if both S and O had
>> only one pattern!
>>
>> The power set function ? means emergence. The power set of any set T
>> includes all subsets of that set, but not necessarily the elements of
>> the subsets. Say you have a set T with elements:
>>
>> a,b,c
>>
>> The power set of that set T would contain the following sets:
>>
>> T0 = {} (empty set)
>> T1 = {c}
>> T2 = {b}
>> T3 = {b,c}
>> T4 = {a}
>> T5 = {a,c}
>> T6 = {a,b}
>> T7 = {a,b,c}
>>
>> Power sets do not necessarily contain the elements of the subsets, only
>> the subsets. This explains why normative quality does not contain
>> sensory perceptions despite emerging from intellectual quality, which
>> does.
>>
>> Let's examine the following snippet:
>>
>> BEGIN PASTE
>>
>>     1I :=def O
>>     2I :=def N
>>     3I :=def S
>>
>> Let ?(T) denote the powerset of an arbitrary set T in our set theory.
>> Let us define a number-theoretic function Modn:? ? ? ? [0,n[ of one
>> free variable such that for every p ? ?+ and q ? ?:
>>
>>     Modp(q) = q ? p?q?p?
>>
>> Thus, Modp(q) is the remainder that results when a natural number q is
>> divided by a positive integer p. Let the following two formulas of our
>> set theory hold:
>>
>>     ?k(k ? {1,2,3} ? ?m(m ? ? ? [1,n[ ? ?(kIm) ? kIm + 1))
>>     ?k(k ? {1,2,3} ? ?(kIn) ? 1 + Mod3(k)I1))
>>
>>
>> END PASTE
>>
>> This basically formalizes the notion that each pattern emerges from the
>> pattern preceding it. The 1I, 2I and 3I simply give index names to
>> objective quality, normative quality and subjective quality. The cycle
>> uses these index names to refer to them.
>>
>> This line:
>>
>> ?k(k ? {1,2,3} ? ?m(m ? ? ? [1,n[ ? ?(kIm) ? kIm + 1))
>>
>> makes the cycle run within one pattern system, such as objective
>> quality. But it does not make the cycle shift from one pattern system
>> to another. That is done by this line:
>>
>> ?k(k ? {1,2,3} ? ?(kIn) ? 1 + Mod3(k)I1))
>>
>> Mod3kI divides the index number of I with 3, gets the remainder and
>> adds one. In effect:
>>
>> 1I => remainder of 1/3, which is 1 => add 1 to that => 2
>> 2I => remainder of 2/3, which is 2 => add 1 to that => 3
>> 3I => remainder of 3/3, which is 0 => add 1 to that => 1
>>
>> By the way, I uncovered two mistakes in the formulas while explaining
>> this to you, so this is certainly a very useful activity! They weren't
>> due to Timo but due to my own mistakes.
>>
>> What does this do then?
>>
>>     Modp(q) = q ? p?q?p?
>>
>> It defines a function. This function performs the calculation q/p and
>> applies the floor function to the result. The floor function is denoted
>> by ? and ? and it practically just rounds down the input it receives.
>>
>> 1/3 = 0,3333... => apply floor function => 0
>> 2/3 = 0,6666... => apply floor function => 0
>> 3/3 = 1 => apply floor function => 1
>>
>> This sort of works as a trigger. Whenever the floor function outputs 0,
>> p is not "activated" because p * 0 = 0. But if we are at the last
>> indexed pattern 3I, the floor function outputs 1. As we all know, p * 1
>> = p.
>>
>> p could stand for "payload", if you will. (BOOM!!)
>>
>> Whenever payload is not activated, Modp is an innocuous function. You
>> input a number, and it outputs the same number. But when payload is
>> activated at the end of the cycle, it outputs 0.
>>
>> Basically, the Modp function doesn't do more than that. But see this
>> formula again:
>>
>> ?k(k ? {1,2,3} ? ?(kIn) ? 1 + Mod3(k)I1))
>>
>> In this formula, 1 is added to anything Modp outputs. So if Modp
>> outputs the same number, this function nevertheless adds one to it. But
>> if Modp outputs 0, this function again adds 1, which is necessary,
>> because 0I does not correspond to any defined form of quality.
>>
>> Enough of the formalisms.
>>
>> Matt:
>>> What we have, however, is a problem with results from Quality
>>> comprising itself in a set.  This would be similar to the "set of all
>>> sets" which in formally invalid.  However, it is true in my opinion
>>> that the set of Quality also contains Quality, so this may be
>>> abstracted by you using a recursive technique (a challenge for you
>>> since I can't present it formally).  So the question is, if Quality is
>>> everything, can it also include itself?
>>
>> It is very important to stress that it doesn't make any sense to ask
>> where Quality is contained in this process. This process is about
>> static quality.
>>
>> Matt:
>>> I did note that you are using a combinatorial approach, where the set
>>> would equal n! (or the product of the whole intergers making up n)
>>> minus the intergers themselves.  You would create a kind of table
>>> which would depict that set.  It should be possible to make this table
>>> multi-dimensional to account for all your sub-qualities.
>>
>> I'm not sure what set = n! means. If j is the number of the elements in
>> the set,  2 ^ j is the number of subsets in the power set, not j!. Did
>> I get this right?
>>
>> Matt:
>>> I especially like your linkistic quality.  Perhaps you can tell me
>>> something about that!
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> Me too. :D They are definitely the least defined part of this theory.
>> I'll get back to this later...
>>
>> -Tuukka
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> All
>>
>>
>> Quoting 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Tuukka,
>>>
>>> On 1/12/12, mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi Matt! =)
>>>>
>>>> To be sure, the math stuff I'm doing right now... well... it sure
>>>> doesn't work out like that! :D I have to reduce the formulae to tree
>>>> structures to understand what they are about in the first place, and I
>>>> don't, at least not yet, do that completely intuitively.
>>>>
>>>> If you're a math geek, you'll like this:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.moq.fi/?p=242
>>>>
>>>> =)
>>>>
>>> Mark:
>>> I took a look at this and did not understand most of it.  It may be
>>> useful for some of us if you provide a common English conclusion of
>>> what the various results mean in terms of MoQ.  Perhaps you could also
>>> define your operators so that we can see what you are doing.  It is
>>> hard to look up those symbols on google :-).
>>>
>>> It looks like set theory to me.  The use of set theory to interogate
>>> Quality is interesting since we may be dealing with infinite sets.  I
>>> presented some on this in previous posts, but then lost interest (or
>>> did not get any response) and moved on.  I did get to read several
>>> books on the subject which made it fulfilling for me.  There are
>>> interesting correspondences in infinte sets.  For example, in a right
>>> (pythagorean) triangle the number of points on the hypotenuse is
>>> exactly the same as the number of points on the base.  It is possible
>>> that in the "real world" there are exactly the same amount of points
>>> in each of your quality sets (except maybe your linkistic quality (if
>>> you spelled that as it is supposed to mean).
>>>
>>> What we have, however, is a problem with results from Quality
>>> comprising itself in a set.  This would be similar to the "set of all
>>> sets" which in formally invalid.  However, it is true in my opinion
>>> that the set of Quality also contains Quality, so this may be
>>> abstracted by you using a recursive technique (a challenge for you
>>> since I can't present it formally).  So the question is, if Quality is
>>> everything, can it also include itself?
>>>
>>> I did note that you are using a combinatorial approach, where the set
>>> would equal n! (or the product of the whole intergers making up n)
>>> minus the intergers themselves.  You would create a kind of table
>>> which would depict that set.  It should be possible to make this table
>>> multi-dimensional to account for all your sub-qualities.
>>>
>>> I especially like your linkistic quality.  Perhaps you can tell me
>>> something about that!
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
> 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
>