[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

Sat May 11 00:44:26 PDT 2013

Adrie to Dan in response of this

Hi Adrie
Have you read Ant's papers on time? I'd be interested in;....

http://robertpirsig.org/Evolution.htm

http://robertpirsig.org/MOQTime.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello ,Dan. Yes i did study this material.
It was not out of rudeness that i did not answer sooner,but sometimes i'm
gone, emotionally.
I walk around in the forest and around the creeks here to reformat. it
helps.

Yes i'm interested in discussing this material , but i do not have ant's
permission to cut/copy/paste,material away from his website
to discuss it here.I will try it, but if he objects it will halt.(he is the
copyright holder)

----------------------------------

Mc Watt Moq and time.

Under conclusion we find,...Ant quoting Hawking
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a
hypothesis: you can never prove it.  No matter how many times the results
of an experiment agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the
next time the result will not contradict the theory.
quoting Pirsig hereafter
"And tends to support Pirsig’s caution about assigning anything objective
as an absolute reality independent from any observer."

--------------------------------------------------------
(Adri) This is what Hawking really writes
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a
hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of
experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next
time the results will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can
disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with
the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has
emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a
number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by
observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the
predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in the theory it is
increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to
abandon or modify the theory. At least that is what is supposed to happen,
but you can always question the competence of the person who carried out
the observation."
-------------------------------------------------------------
comment Adrie

I do not object to the use of material out of context if used with the
utmost care.Needless to say that this is a common practice,and Anthony
works with this material in a very structural way.
The complete quote of Hawking/Popper however in the way that is depicted
here,will be read as philosofic science.It is here that my concerns are
gathering themselves.
What hawking is writing is a metatheory, a theory on top of a theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatheory
pay attention to the fact that the wikiarticle is using the same Hawking
quote as an example.
It is common in philosophical science to develop metatheory's and the
framework to embed them.It comes along with the today's jargon.The moq is a
metatheory,metaphysiks mostly is,the popscience books of Hawking are
written as metatheory's to bridge the water between science and the common
public.Nobody will buy a book full of path integral's about the Hawking
radiation around black holes.But what  runs out of sight here is the fact
that we have a number of metatheory's building upon eachother to find
foundations and progress,morover, in trying to achieve this goal,DR Mc
Watts analyse and concluding summary is embedding a clearly
metatheorethical evidence into the other two.
now we can see the prediction better
analogy upon analogy upon analogy.........

My main remark however goes for Hawking an his unhandy metarexample.
Lets consider a car as a study object and make it collide to a wall of
concrete for a million times.Lets do this at different speeds, starting
from near zero to near lightspeed.Along the way the collisions procede, we
will see different patterns as in the results of the scattering of the
car's debris. Trajectory's made by a carradiator that were unknown
previously to be possible to occur.Patterns in the scattering of the shards
of glass that were previously unknown prior tho these collisions.
No matter however the magnitude of the experiment, and the contradicions it
will provide,there is really no way the contradictions will outrun the
summarising envelop of the concept car/collision/possible effect for
debris/debris itself/under the umbrella of speed what so ever.
the collisions will never produce a nipple, milk or a dna helix
alltogether, or lets say something like a cucumber.
But this is the impression the reader gets if he reads things like this out
of their context.
Ant quoting Hawking.(same article)
This means that there isn’t any measurement outside the black hole that can
be predicted with certainty: our ability to make definite [physical]
predictions would be reduced to zero.  So maybe astrology is no worse at
predicting the future than the laws of science.
Comment Adrie.
given all the above,one should now be able to see that Hawkings last
sentence is a major fuck-up.But pay attention that he writes"maybe".
the sentence before that one is in fact only correct if used in his own
black hole context.

Kind regards, Adrei

2013/5/6 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>

> Hello everyone
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:12 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > rmp - Dan
> >
> > "Time is a
> > primitive intellectual index of this change."
> >
> > “In the MOQ
> > time is dependent on experience independently of matter"
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Adrie.
> > By implication  the first statement labels time as non subject non
> object,
> > non conceptualisation-"primitive etc....
> >
>
> Hi Adrie
> Have you read Ant's papers on time? I'd be interested in what you think.
>
> http://robertpirsig.org/Evolution.htm
>
> http://robertpirsig.org/MOQTime.htm
>
>
> Adrie:
>
> > So our history can remain as it is, only the philosophical and
> scientifical
> > way we previously tought about it, is finetuned.
> > there is no conflict with dynamic or static quality.
> >
>
> Dan:
> Right. Rationality is expanded.
>
> Thanks, Adrie!
>
> Dan
>
> http://www.danglover.com
> 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
>

-- 
parser