[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Hi Tuukka,

On 3/1/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
>>> Tuukka:
>>> Hmm. We are probably talking about subtly different things here. I'm
>>> saying that metaphysics is intended to be, from a logical point of view,
>>> the ultimate metatheory of the human linguistic experience, which has no
>>> further metatheories. It is /possible/ to speak of physics as a
>>> metatheory of metaphysics, but I find that cumbersome and unelegant. The
>>> Kolmogorov complexity of a metaphysical theory is reduced, yet its
>>> features apparently remain the same, if physics is expected to belong to
>>> a certain slot within a metaphysical theory. I would like to be proven
>>> wrong, but as I haven't, I find my choice justified due to its
>>> simplicity. I intend RP to have the minimum amount of information that
>>> is necessary to convey its message. Elaborate meditations on physics as
>>> a metatheory of metaphysics are possible, but they are /undesirable/,
>>> because they complicate the theory while apparently adding nothing to
>>> it. This has nothing to do with /creation/ of truth. It is about
>>> categorization of truths.
>> Tuukka, it would seem that you are taking the same tact that
>> Wittgenstein took.  He had to abandon that, and confine his
>> metaphysics to specific cases in the end.  he also thought metaphysics
>> to be trivial since it was simply an excercise in semantics.  Is this
>> where you are going with your metaphysics?  Read Tractatus, perhaps
>> what you are writing has already been written.
>
> Tuukka:
> No! Tractatus is the /young/ Wittgenstein! That's not where Wittgenstein
> confined his metaphysics in the /end/. The old Wittgenstein is
> completely different. He finds out the same thing as Aristotle did -
> that rhetoric ("persuasion") comes before everything else - but he also
> found out a bunch of problems Aristotle didn't pay so much attention to.
> Read "On Certainty" by /old/ Wittgenstein.
>
> In the proposition 5.6 of Tractatus, Wittgenstein says things pretty
> right, or at least seems to mean them pretty right, but the conclusion
> of the book ("Wovon Mann nicht spechen kann..." ) is an exagerrating
> interpretation of the meaning of that proposition.

OK, my mistake.  I assumed from you post (now deleted) that you were
encapsulating your metaphysics within the semantic restrictions that
Wittgenstein presents.  Yes, Wittgenstein brought in the ultimate
conclusions of his approach, but there are not exagerrated, they
simply fall from his premises.

Of course he later shows how one can get away from such conclusions.
In this he is showing how to get out of a cage of his own making.  If
one does not create such a cage to begin with, one does not have to
escape from it.

So, we can move on under the assumption that your metaphysics is but
one way of presenting MoQ, and should not be taken literally.
>
>> Mark:
>>
>> It seems that you have proven yourself wrong by using mathematics to
>> expound on your metaphysics.  Interesting that you would choose the
>> concept of metatheory.  This would be like the set of all sets, or the
>> psychology of psychology.  I will be interested to see how you apply
>> this to MoQ.
>
> Tuukka:
>
> Look... there are certain requirements for "proofs". Nobody has ever
> presented a proof that I contradict myself here. Would you like to be
> the first? Be my guest, but you haven't /yet/ done it.

I do not see why you "require" certain methods for proofs.  Any proof
is a structure which we build for the purposes of rhetoric.  That is,
to arrive at some agreement in terms of the usefulness of any
conclusion.  I am not speaking of contradiction, I am pointing towards
methodology.  You prefer the scientific or formulaic approach, which I
have no problem with.  However, you cannot in the same breath claim
that such an approach is "primitive".  For primitive approaches result
in primitive conclusions.
>
>> Mark:
>>
>> How is it that you intend RP to do anything?  I do not quite
>> understand what you are saying here.  Is this a Master and Puppet kind
>> of thing?
>
> Tuukka:
>
> I don't know what's a "Master and Puppet kind of thing".

In your own words you claim for Pirsig to do certain things (now
deleted).  This is what I mean.  Are you managing Pirsig?
>
> RP doesn't do anything? What do you mean by "RP doing something"? Do you
> mean it has an added algorithmic side, or do you mean it produces a
> revelation like Pirsig's books did? The former is on the to do -list,
> the latter already done, but this revelation is not accessible to people
> who don't like maths.

You were the one who brought it up.  Review your previous post which I
was simply responding to.  What Pirsig does is add flesh to a
realization he had many years before.  This is an incarnation of an
idea.  Such incarnation can be brought forth in many different ways.
Pirsig chose a style in which to do this.  You may choose a different
style, which is great.  If you want to confine your revelation to
those who read your posts AND understand your math, then I do not see
much use in it.  I only assume that your metaphysics is in aid of
progressing MoQ, such that it can be understood by others and expanded
by them in turn.  If indeed your presentation is meant only for
yourself, then that is a different story.  By all means, present it
for the records, at sometime a fan of MoQ will take it and move it
along.  I am not trying to dissuade you from your intention.  I will
certainly read it with interest to see if I can use it in my
understanding of MoQ.
>
>> Mark:
>>
>> If you do not want to complicate your theory, then stay away from
>> formulas, and follow your own advice.
>>
> Tuukka:
> What an oxymoronic advice.

Are you saying that your advice is oxymoronic?  I am simply following
on from what you claim is an appropriate form for which to present a
metaphysics.  Review your posts on this subject.  On the one hand you
claim that science (measurements) is inappropriate, on the other hand
you move forward with using it.

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
>