Hi Jorge, I think you are right that in defining the levels as discrete, he opens the MOQ to Platypi. Note that these Platypi you are talking about aren't of the philosophical variety of mind/body, free will, etc. but rather of the more mundane "what kind of thing is this" sort. It is possible that someone could come up with an example of a pattern that doesn't fit, but I think the beauty of thinking in terms of patterns instead of "things" is that we can break patterns down into different aspects (more patterns). In the example of a virus, we can look at the characteristics that suggest biological life and talk about the virus's participation in biological patterns. We don't need to classyfy the virus as a "thing" as a specific type of pattern. We already know that as a material thing it is an inorganic pattern. The question then becomes, does it also participate in biological patterns?
You are right to think that if someone can think of a pattern that cannot be broken down into categorizable patterns that that would constitute a problem for the MOQ. The MOQ does not propose itself to be the final say on philosophy. I think it actually predicts that something better will come along. Regards, Steve 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
