[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark, all,

> Hi Joe,
> In my opinion, DQ/sq is a conceptualization of existence.  The result
> of their interaction results in the appearance of levels.  The method
> which we describe such appearance is through the concept of evolution
> (in that I agree with you).  As such, this evolution is demarkated by
> distinct species (cannot mate with each other to form offspring),
> which (for whatever reason) are said congeal in a manner which can be
> classified by us simple humans.  My opinion is that we create these
> levels more than observe them, but that is just me.
>
> I have to say, that there are plenty of other forms of metaphysics
> which also conceptualize existence, for, that is what metaphysics
> does.  For this reason, I include the Sciences, such as Physics
> (including Math), Religions, Mysticism, Shamanism, and New Age
> Movements (not to mention Sesame Street) as metaphysics.  Let's get
> real, all propose an answer to what existence is.
>
> Obviously some types of metaphysics are more popular than others.  Is
> this because people are stupid not to gravitate towards MoQ?  I think
> not, since people much brighter than I are convinced by physics or
> Christianity.  It may be because other forms of metaphysics have
> better presenters.  It may also be because some are more easy to
> grasp.  Perhaps MoQ should be easier to understand.  We do not need a
> shaman for that, we need an interpreter.  Such interpretation has been
> successful for all the great philosophies (Carl Sagan comes to mind).
>
> I am still waiting for the MoQ book on that one, hopefully it is in progress...
>
> Mark
>

Tuukka:

I'm writing something. I hope it is a book like that.

"DQ/sq is a conceptualization of existence."

This is one of the pretty right ways to speak of DQ/sq in my educated 
opinion.

MOQ isn't very easy to understand. If someone wrote a book on MOQ that's 
like the books Feynman, Dawkins or Hawking write, it would appeal to the 
general public. I'm not talking about style, I'm talking about clarity. 
I don't wonder not many people get far because there are a lot of 
obstacles. Also, not all people seem to need metaphysics. I mean, I need 
it, my psyche needs it, but some people are more interested of other 
things. Pleasant, conventional, professional, as easy and clear as 
possible... and no trace left of the tone that attacks the academy.

I'm thinking of a practical application of MOQ, too. I've been talking 
with people on LessWrong. Lots of smart people there and they don't seem 
to cling to any bizarre metaphysical beliefs although they differ 
slightly from those of mine or ours. But my RP doesn't yet have enough 
substance. The algorithm part is missing, so the theory doesn't do 
anything yet.

-Tuukka