[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

On 3/5/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark
>
> You got everything about right. I'd like to refine the idea just a bit.
>
>
>> Mark:
>> I understand this.  You are creating a set of "romantic quality" and
>> simplifying such a set with 4 variables.  As you say, these variables
>> must be "defined", otherwise such a set is useless.  As you are aware,
>> there are many different ways to formalize "Romantic Value", and the
>> choice of variables is important so that we can all agree on them
>> (define).  It may also be important to have non-overlapping variables,
>> so we do not get caught up in one variable changing the nature of
>> another since this can get messy and require complex algebra, which
>> will only expand exponentially with each new relationship (infinitely
>> growing recursion?).  Keeping it as simple as possible is important as
>> was said by William from Occam.  It is understood that such simplicity
>> is just a formality, and life is not simple.  It is also understood
>> that we are not trying to reduce life to a set of equations.  Words do
>> not reduce life to the static, they simply add to the dynamic nature
>> of life, as I see it.
>
> Tuukka:
>  From a /logical/ point of view, there is no romantic quality. That is
> because logical symbols cannot be /logically/ proven to correspond to
> any kind of sensory experiences. Furthermore, any arbitrary argeements,
> according to which they do, cannot be expressed by means of formal logic.

How about you look at it this way.  It is logic that creates the
notion of a romantic quality.  Therefore it is created and must exist.
 This is what logic is for, to be creative.  Of course romantic
quality does not exist as we create it with logic, but that is not the
point of logic, in my opinion.
>
> Instead, romantic quality is, /from a logical point of view/, defined as
> the intersection of opposite subjective and objective patterns.
> "Opposite" means that if the romantic levels are R1, R2, R3 and R4,
> level R1 is the intersection of the bottom pattern (inorganic) of LILA
> and the top pattern of subjective quality in RP. The intersection is
> assumed to be nonempty, even though its content cannot be logically
> expressed. This "oppositeness" is how, in a formal context, the concepts
> "objective quality" and "subjective quality" acquire different meanings.

OK, cool.  Sound a bit like the Yin and Yang to my simple brain.
>
> Even if romantic quality were an ordinary set, it is, technically, not
> "simplified with 4 variables". Instead, it is split into four subsets,
> each of which has exactly one predecessor (in order of emergence) and
> exactly one successor.

Well, that is an interesting twist.

>
> A variable, on the other hand, is used to decide, how many subsets do we
> want to have. This variable is what I called "accuracy" earlier. If
> accuracy is set to 4, each pattern system (subjective quality, objective
> quality, normative quality) is split to 4 subsets, with the subsets of
> objective quality forming the static value patterns in LILA.

OK, I am following.
>
>
>
> Mark:
>
> 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:
>
> Here you are ignoring what is called "the symbol grounding problem". No
> axiomatized logic has any "units" in the sense physics does. The difference
> between logic and physics, or at least on of the differences, is that logic
> does not even aim to solve the symbol grounding problem, whereas physics, in
> some sense, does.

Well, I suppose you can say that.  In my intepretation of reality, the
units of measure are the qualities of everything.  Since that is all
we can apprehend, it makes sense that the Mother of all these
"qualities" is Quality.

Physics is only grounded in a relative sense.  That is, units can only
be compared to other units.  We make those units up, so that is how it
must be.  But I understand.  There have been attempts to make
philosophy more like physics, by formalizing all the terms.  I think
B. Russell and another guy came up with this.  It did provide some
grounding in terms of proof, but was limited by the terms which it
created, and allowed for little thinking outside of the box.

We ground things by agreeing on the definitions of words.  We ground
things by stating that something follows logically and something else
does not.  These are all agreed on premises.  Otherwise we would be
living in the tower of Babel :-).  My oipinion of course.
>
>
Here's an idea I came up with when I was thinking about your math.
Let us say that romantic quality is a good method for expanding a
created understanding of MoQ, and not belabor that point until we see
what it results in.   It would seem to me that included in the
variables, there must be some kind of "stabilizing principle".  That
is, RQ must have a propensity towards "homeostasis" or balancing.  As
a biochemist, I can point to all sorts of feedback signals that the
body creates so as to remain somewhat consistent.  For example, when
an enzyme converts something into something else, that "something
else" then goes back to the enzyme to tell it to stop making more.  If
it did not, the body would pretty much destroy itself with all the
enzyme activity.  This is an oversimplification but gives you an idea.

If we have, say, four parameters, and each parameter affects the other
parameters, then it is easy to see how a small perturbation with send
the whole system completely out of control.  So, there must be a
method for keeping things somewhat stable, because that is how they
appear.

Just an idea, you may have no use for it, or maybe you have already
thought about it.  I find your endeavor to be interesting, so I think
about it, and provide you with some of that thinking, as strange as it
may be.

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
>