[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark,


>> Mark:
>> Logic can be used to prove anything, even two exactly opposite 
>> arguments. So conclusions are not false, but they may be of low 
>> quality :-). Only time will tell, in 2000 years we will see if 
>> Wittgenstein has the staying power of Plato or Aristotle. I just 
>> can't wait! (mainly because I will be dead, but that is besides the 
>> point...).

Tuukka:
Logic cannot be used to prove that E=m2c, because it's not a normative 
statement whose truth value is solely dependent on arbitrary axioms.

>
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> The first sentence, "but one way of presenting MoQ", is ok, but what
>> would it mean for RP to be metaphorical? Everything RP says about static
>> quality is to be taken literally. But everything RP says about Dynamic
>> Quality or Quality may be, and probably should be, taken metaphorically.
>
> Hmmm... perhaps this is true.  However, MoQ could be constructed to
> mean exactly the same thing without the levels.

Tuukka:
That's true. Also RePa can be constructed in such a way, that the 
"accuracy" of the theory is set to 1. It won't have patterns that way, 
yet it's still a variation of the MOQ.

> Mark: It is hard to take
> his complaints about the Victorian age literally, that would be way
> too distracting for me.  He supplies many examples for what he is
> presenting, but they are just examples, and do not need to be true.
> It is rhetoric he works with, not some dialectic, in my opinion.  If I
> read his examples as parables of some kind, they are more meaningful
> to me than reading them as fact or history.  I guess I am easily
> distracted by specifics.

Tuukka:
Yup. Pirsig did the initial job, I'm trying to tidy up to make the idea 
more appealing to certain people. Like Aristotle said, rhetoric comes 
before everything else.

>>> Mark:
>>> I do not see why you "require" certain methods for proofs.  Any proof
>>> is a structure which we build for the purposes of rhetoric.
>> Tuukka:
>>
>> Rhetoric comes before everything else. Aristotle was actually right
>> about this. Proofs are part of the process of reducing rhetoric to
>> static patterns. So, if "proofs are build for the purposes of rhetoric"
>> means "proofs are for finding order within rhetoric", you're right, but
>> if it means "proofs are built in order to have rhetoric in the first
>> place", you are not right. There cannot be proofs without rhetoric.
> Mark:
> Well, I am not sure what Aristotle thought.

Tuukka:
Pirsig is, and he says that's what Aristotle thought. It's the lecture 
debate in ZAMM.

> Mark: Certainly his writings
> can be interpreted in many ways, there are still graduate students
> getting Ph.D.'s on Aristotle, so new interpretation is still possible.

Tuukka:
It's not new. It was written by Pirsig's lecturer who used it against it.
> Mark:
> Sorry, I did not mean that.  What I meant is that I cannot point to
> your statement in the body of the response I am providing.  Nobody is
> deleting your posts so far as I can tell.  I have been warned by Horse
> not to go certain places so I don't, I think my posts are in the
> archives as well.  They are all Google searchable, so now Google can
> try to sell us a "Quality "dynamic" engine with "static" control, for
> use in parlaying the "Platonic" relationships which we come across in
> "quantum" relationships outside of "reality" shows", if you know what
> I mean.  Believe me, I have gotten some pretty weird and funny
> advertisements on my Gmail.  Not for long since I have opted to stop
> using both Gmail and Google.  I just find it too insidious, and I do
> not want to help them control the world.

Tuukka:
Ha! :D Okay. Glad to hear they're not deleted.

> Mark:
> I would like RMP to participate in this forum.  It that is not
> possible, I would like him to write a book titled "The Zen inQuality".
>
> MoQ provides me with a consistent way of approaching my everyday
> reality.  Of course my interpretation is not the same as others, which
> is why I get stuck in little debates here and there.  So, go figure.
> Maybe your MoQ will be more like mine.

Tuukka:
Ohh... but that's RMP, not RP. :) No wonder we didn't seem to understand 
each other at first! Maybe I should call my theory RePa? The name isn't 
probably very good anyway... my math friend said the theory doesn't have 
enough mathematical recursion to justify that name.

But I've never heard someone call Pirsig RP, only RMP.

>
>> Tuukka:
>> I will not present it here, because this mailing list format cannot
>> print LaTeX-formulae. I'm thinking more like making a LessWrong article
>> of it and trying to submit it or parts of it to arXiv. For example, some
>> stuff regarding Dynamic Quality and the liar paradox could be of
>> interest to arXiv. MD is not my intended publication platform. I'm here
>> only to work with you, not to publish things. Of course publishing on
>> moq.org is another idea - why not. But first the work needs to be
>> somewhat ready.
> OK, but how about a regular English synopsis?  I certainly understand
> the need to be somewhat finished, as a scientist I do not like to
> publish until I am sure that what I wrote is reasonable and will not
> be thrown out by the reviewers.  So Good Luck.

Tuukka:

Publishing a synopsis here is a good idea.

-Tuukka