[MD] Idealistic static value patterns

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

Mark,
another name confusion

Quoting 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>:

> 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).

Tuukka:
No. I do include _sets_ {a}, {b} and {c} to the powerset. But I don't  
include _elements_ a, b and c to the power set. Including an element  
to a set (eg. "n ∈ ℕ") is different from including a set into a set  
(eg. "S ⊆ T").

To demonstrate: We could say that the set of dogs contains all  
individual dogs, those hairy fellows, as members. Likewise, the set of  
species includes the set of dogs. But no individual dog is a species.

>
> 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.

Tuukka:
You mean English translation of the text involving DQ? It's underway.

>
> 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.

Fair enough. You are probably insane unless you use NF set theory and  
have figured out some things I haven't realized possible.

> Quality is an active principle which
> generates itself, rather than some denotation for "everything".

This is no longer insane. Your Quality seems algorithmic. I'm trying  
to implement an algorithmic side to RP, but haven't yet really began.  
I hope someone with better math ability would be interested. I have a  
hard time studying math alone.

> 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?

Containing dq is like clapping with one hand.

>
> 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.

I suppose I get what you mean, although I don't think it can be said.

>
> 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.

The important thing is to have people expect the right thing. You  
possibly have the ability to be a captivating preacher despite not  
making sense. But I have to do a paradigm shift away from maths when  
I'm going into this level.

-Tuukka