[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

On 3/1/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark:
>
>
>> Mark:
>> What is empirical about string theory?  This is something we will
>> never be able to measure.  The variables presented are "by definition"
>> not measureable.
>
> Tuukka:
> String theory is a particular instance of physics, that is considered
> physics mostly because of seemingly similar subject matter. It's not
> very empirical, but on the other hand, it's scientific value is
> considered dubious at large. So the issue is not whether string theory
> is physics, but whether it's good physics or not. Not being currently
> empirically verifiable makes us wonder, whether it ever will be. If
> never, then it's not good physics, but we don't yet know.

Yes, it is not traditional physics, it is more like alchemy.  Not that
I have a problem with that, I think it is cool.
>
>> Mark:
>> 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?
>
> Tuukka:
> This is really sidetracked. I love science, particularily physics, and
> physics is the discipline that got me interested of science in the first
> place. I do not mean science has low Quality or anything like that. I'm
> just saying that logically, it is more elegant to define various
> scientific disciplines as subsets of metaphysics, because that's the
> only way the metaphysical theory can be used to explain them. I am not
> banning other kind of definitions, but I'm pointing out that this
> definition is very essential, if we want metaphysics to explain science.

OK, I will drop that line of pestering.
>
>> Mark:
>> 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"
>
> Tuukka:
>
>
> Huh? So you are a physicalist, metaphysically? You believe everything
> consists of emergent products of quarks, leptons, forces and such
> physical phenomena?

No, sometimes I like to argue for no good reason.  I do not believe
everything about physics.  Many things I just do not care about.  I do
like to read about some things, however, because they give me lots of
crazy idea.  I do not believe everything put forth in Lila either.
Some of it is too incongruous.
>
>> Mark:
>> 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?
>
> Tuukka:
> Formulas cannot be used to prove anything I want, because RP is not a
> formal theory despite including formulae. Likewise, physics is not a
> formal theory despite including formulae. RP's all formulae are not
> tautologies, but contingent, and their contingency depends on
> observations - namely, that one specific kind of observation is
> possible. Would you like to hear more? Is this relevant to you?

Yes, please.
>
>> Mark:
>> 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.
>
> Tuukka:
> I don't think they can be combined into a simple explanation without
> omitting important detail. I'm not competing with your work or trying to
> put it into a nutshell. I'm trying to create a better framework for such
> work than canonical MOQ by Pirsig, and it's up to you whether you want
> to use it. Basically, the framework will probably increase the amount of
> stuff you can do. You didn't mention mathematics in your list, and you
> didn't mention Jungian psychology in your list either. I'm pointing this
> out because those two disciplines are very difficult to meaningfully
> express within canonical MOQ. They fare better in RP. But like I said, I
> haven't written the explanations. What I'm trying to do is to describe,
> what are the rules according to which all such explanations - such as
> the ones you made - relate to each other. That's a different thing than
> making the explanations themselves.

I am not competing either.  Sometimes I "steal" your work and make it
work within my framework.  That is one reason I am in this forum,
beside endlessly posting stuff just to see what I am thinking, and be
able to archive it so that I can then read what I thought.  I cannot
reflect on what I type when I am typing it, it just comes out (hand of
God :-)?)  So, please take my comments as some kind of compliment or
as some kind of self-help for myself.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Tuukka:
> Huh? NO! RP means Recursive Patterns (the name of my theory) in my
> lingo. This is probably a very confusion-prone way of speaking. Maybe I
> should use a different abbreviation.

OK, now much makes sense to me.  Thanks.
>
>> Mark:
>> 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.
>
> Tuukka:
> True. I guess the only metatheory of RP I might want is one that allows
> references to RP, and even that only for rhetorical purposes.
>
> I think we managed to communicate something here.

Yup we always do.

Thanks,
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
>