[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Tuukka,

On 3/1/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>> Tuukka,
>> Why are you resorting to math?  You claimed in a previous post that
>> physics was primitive, or something.  Are you saying that math and
>> physics are not one and the same?
>
> Tuukka:
> Of course they are not the same. :D Physics is an empirical science.
> Maths is a normative science. RP is not a mathematical theory, but it
> employs the methods of mathematics in order to be more precise and
> well-defined, so that people would know exactly what I mean.

What is empirical about string theory?  This is something we will
never be able to measure.  The variables presented are "by definition"
not measureable.
>
> If you have a problem with that, why don't you have a problem with me
> using language in the first place? After all, math is just another language.


I do not have a problem with it.  You are the one with a distaste for
physics and the manner in which it is presented :-).  Why do you have
a problem with physics as a metaphysics?  Are you saying that physics
is somehow more or less real?
>
> Also, I have no aversion to using primitive tools whenever they suit my
> goals. But I don't think I meant that "physics is primitive, or
> something". What I said that in the context of metaphysics, it is more
> practical to portray physics as a subset of metaphysics. In the context
> of physics, it is more practical to do the opposite. But this here is a
> mailing list for the /Metaphysics/ of Quality. That, I presume, means
> that we are looking at things from a metaphysical point of view. This,
> in turn, would mean that we are, in the end, interested of the semantic
> structure of our experience of reality, and of the experiences from
> which we derive this structure. For these intents and purposes, it would
> be beside the point to examine physics as a metatheory of metaphysics,
> although it is indeed possible. Because if we did that, the topic of
> this forum would suddenly be physics. But I haven't seen much discussion
> about physics here.

I am not sure about the practicality of which you speak.  Why is it
more practicle?  I find it more practical to see it as a metaphysics,
perhaps as one of the many bodies of metaphysics, but no more a subset
than MoQ.  For that is indeed what physics is, by definition.
Explaining the "what is"

I do not think it is advisable to based a metaphysics on the semantics
of language, as I have tried to stress to you in previous emails.  I
am not suggesting we use physics as a metatheory.  Neither is it
advisable to use metaphysics as a metatheory of metaphysics.  This is
what Hegel did, as in "the final conclusion of all philosophy".  Of
course philosphy was far from concluded, and such a statement simply
came from personal pride (the deadliest of the sins).

Pirsig brings in physics as have I.  Read some of my posts equating
Quality to the Higgs Field for example.  There are countless posts of
mine which bring in physics.  Check the archives.  I do this with
common sense rhetoric rather than some contrived formulas.  Formulas
can be used to prove anything you want, but are such proofs useful?
>
> Besides, this forum would also have to be about biology, social sciences
> and what not. If we deemed it necessary to examine physics as a
> metatheory of the MOQ, we would also need to examine biology as a
> metatheory of the MOQ, and sociology as such a metatheory, and so on.
> Bear in mind, that I'm not /forbidding/ anyone from doing that. What I'm
> saying is that for the sake of simplicity, I would like all these
> sciences - physics, biology, sociology - to have only one manifestation
> within RP.

Yes, and I have brought all those subjects into my posts.  I have also
included , psychology, anthropology, chemistry, biochemical physics,
politics, economics, archeology, empiricism, the science behind
consciousness, and so forth.  I do not think it is possible for all of
these to be combined into a simple explanation, but you may be
successful.  Such simplification leaves so much out that MoQ cannot
progress, in my opinion.  But, I will follow your metaphysics with
interest, and not without some comments :-).  I am not speaking of
metatheories by the way.

I assume you are referring to Pirsig with RP, if not please let me
know.  It does not make sense for something to manifest with an
individual.  An individual radiates meaning towards the outside.  So
you must be referring to something else.  It would help me if you
presented the full name of an acronym if there may be some confusion.
>
> You do have some kind of a point here, though. It is perhaps even very
> interesting. I could perhaps define the patterns in such a way, that
> each pattern is an acceptable metatheory for the entire RP. This could
> actually be ingenious. Thank you!

I think that the metatheory approach may be difficult since it
inherently contains a self-destructive nature, like the set of all
sets, or the psychology or psychology.  But, please carry on since I
know only a litte.
>
> I'll let you know when I've gotten something like that done. If you want
> to, that is. I will use formulae to do it, and if you are /offended/ by
> them, then I will just do it, but not tell you. =)

I am never offended, I simply try to make sense of what you post.  I
am not offended by formulae, I use them in my everyday work.  They can
get very complicated.

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
>