[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

[David Harding]

Hi Tuukka,

> I'm not sure whether you mean "relativity, as that word is used within the SOM perspective, is a problem" or "relativity is a problem from a SOM perspective". I'd say the word 'relativity' is a problem from any perspective, because it has different meaning depending on the context. In a Buddhist context it means something it apparently doesn't mean in any branch of Western moral philosophy. But Buddhist "relativism" has analogues in computer science, such as "recursion" and "dynamically typed programming language".

OK.

> From a logical point of view, the comparison pattern is metatheoretic, so it's not "a pattern like every other", if you excuse my nitpicking. Such a metapattern has potential existence, but I'm not sure in what sense it is supposed to exist, when a person is not performing meta-analysis. I mean, there is no upper limit to how many metalevels there could be, but not all of them "exist" in any sense that is different to the way how obscenely large numbers, which I cannot express, "exist".

As soon as the comparison is made, it exists, not before. How many levels are there? Well, how long do you have?

> We can say that, but I wouldn't say that's all we can say about them. Their mutual relations could best be described by the concept of "linear emergence". In RP, there are more complex emergence relations.
> 
> In RP, it does make sense to say the patterns are recursively defined. Canonical MOQ, on the other hand, is not well-defined enough to definitively and readily explain, what it would mean to say the patterns are recursively defined. But because reality defining itself recursively is a Buddhist doctrine, it can readily _seen_ to be attachable to the MOQ even though it is not as readily, on a formal level, seen _already_present_ in the MOQ.

Recursion and Buddhism? How are they related?

> Yeah. Oftentimes the "truth" is called an intension and the "thing itself" is called an extension. Speaking of "things as themselves" ("Ding an sich") can make certain other philosophers roll in their graves, which is a bit undesirable.

Oftentimes? It looks to be logic related?

> That's pretty wild... I would not imagine myself to be able to take the Perspective of Dynamic Quality. That would be like being able to see things like the true God sees them. I don't even know what that would mean. I don't what is the perspective of Dynamic Quality like, and I don't understand how anyone could know it sees no patterns. How could Dynamic Quality latch to something that does not exist?

I agree. It cannot. Have you ever practiced any form of Zen meditation? If you do, you will notice that when you sit for the first time, your mind ticks along at 100000000 miles an hour. But after a while, if you stick at it and just keep sitting, the mind slows down, and the ticks become less and less, untill.... No more ticks.   It's at this point someone is said to be enlightened. 

-David.