[MD] lila's soliloquy

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark
I agree that naming our theory Sets of Quality could seem to imply that 
it's only set theory. But it's not. It's not "Set theory of Quality", 
it's "Sets of Quality" with sets and other stuff.

-Tuukka



30.3.2012 16:50, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
> Mark,
>> Mark:
>> Perhaps, as you say, set theory is not a useful mathematical
>> metaphysics with which to present MoQ.
>
> Tuukka:
> I regret to inform you that you've gotten it wrong now. The MoQ cannot 
> be adequately expressed by means of set theory. But that's not what I 
> did. The MoQ can be expressed adequately by means of mathematics. All 
> mathematics is not set theory, and our work on the concept of Dynamic 
> Quality is not founded on set theory, but non-set-theoretic logic. We 
> don't always use set theory. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.
>
> -Tuukka
>
>> Mark:
>>
>> We cannot even talk about static quality, strictly speaking, for
>> static quality cannot encompass itself.
>
> Tuukka:
> This is quite possible. I think I should talk with Timo about this. I 
> would have already done so, but he didn't answer the phone. The 
> question I should ask is "is 'relativizably used predicates' a 
> relativizably used predicate"?
>
>> Mark: Around and around we
>> go then, saying that what one presents is static quality and dynamic
>> quality cannot be approached.
>
> Tuukka:
> Another misconception. Dynamic Quality can be expressed by language, 
> and that is actually frequently done. In poetry, this may result in a 
> masterpiece. In philosophy, this tends to result in a problem. I'm not 
> saying Dynamic Quality cannot be approached. I'm saying it makes to 
> sense to perform the act of "approaching Dynamic Quality". I will try 
> to elaborate further. Even if it were possible, the approach itself 
> wouldn't make sense. Even if the approach WORKED, it wouldn't make 
> sense in a definable way. Unless someone manages to define it, but 
> then it would again become static.
>
>> Mark:
>>
>> So let us get past this static quality paradox, and move on.  Let us
>> say that the distinction between DQ and sq is useful, and can bring
>> about enlightenment.
>
> Tuukka:
> Of course it's useful. From a set theoretic point of view, it's an 
> appealing simplification. From your point of view, it may even be "how 
> it is". You are free to think that it's a flaw of set theory - not a 
> flaw of the MOQ - that all of MOQ can't be expressed by means of set 
> theory.
>
> I just solved a problem for you. You should be grateful. I'm not 
> saying everyone should take some certain point of view to the MOQ. I'm 
> saying that I'm now taking the set theoretic point of view, and within 
> that viewpoint, that's the way how things are.
>
> I value precision. I maybe don't understand why you want to use a 
> viewpoint that I find vague. I have no objection to you taking that, 
> so don't you object set theory either.
>
> -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
>