[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

This came through previously.
Cheers,
Mark

On 3/5/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> But this e-mail didn't go through even though it was sent to the right
> address.
>
> 5.3.2012 14:50, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
>  > 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.
>  >
>  > 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.
>  >
>  > 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.
>  >
>  > 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.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 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.
>  >
>  >
>  > -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
>