[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Hi Tuukka

On 3/1/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> 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.

As far as I can tell, any logic is dependent on arbitrary axioms.
Math is logic, and the equalization of mass and energy through a
constant conversion is simply a logical conversion of units.  That is
E=m only the units are different.  The interesting thing about the
relationship between energy and mass is that it is a "phase change"
similar to water going to vapor.  Like the evaporation of water, the
phase change of mass to energy requires energy input (heat of
vaporization), so that it takes energy to get energy.  This then
becomes self realizing so that a fire can spread using its own energy.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.

I think that was Plato and his allegories.  But I know what you mean.
Pirsig is trying to describe the difference between a Quality approach
and a Truth approach.  He uses the dynamics of Plato's time to present
this as a parable.  This is therefore just an example of how Quality
can be presented.  As you say, you may have a different and more
understandable presentation, but hopefully we are all discussing the
same thing.  The purpose of presenting these things is not to claim
that it is the best way, but to try to make it better.  This can only
be a collaborative effort since we all have our own experiences.
>
>> 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.

Well at least you will get feedback which I hope is positive even if
it is critical.  Several minds think better than one, which is why
words were invented...
>
> -Tuukka
> 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
>