Ron prev: So it's safe to say quantity is a quality. Jorge (current): No Ron, I'm sorry to differ again; it is not safe at all to say quantity is a quality. The quality of the water in a bucket taken from a large lake is the same as that of the billions of liters of water in the lake. Ron: Quite true but the quality of that bucket of water Is the quality of the lake. The amount of water is a quality Of the water isn't it?
Jorge: The quality of a book is independent of its size or weight. Ron: Size, weight, color are qualities aren't they? I think you are mixing Types of qualities. Lets use a more accurate analogy, the qualities of a gold bracelet are weight, size, substance, color, and also are aesthetic, Beauty, comfortableness, worth ect. You are dividing quality by subject / object. Calling subjective, quality and quantity objective, when it all is quality every last bit. Man is the measure. Jorge: I don't recall who, but for sure was one of the old Greeks, realized a long time ago, that quality is a property of some thing (or ascribed to)whereas quantity is extrinsic to it. Ron: I'm not saying that Quality IS quantity or equal but quantity Is a quality of things. I guess I'm referring to how these aspects are measured, it is By reference to other aspects. The Quality of a book is measured By the relation to other books. Energy is like wise measured. Jorge: In any case I'm glad you brought in the quote from Wikipedia, because it says there that energy is a 'scalar physical quantity'. Now, physical quantities can be measured and, as such, its relations with other measurable physical quantities "can be precisely formulated in mathematical equations." as I said above. By no stretch of imagination I can figure out how can you say the same about quality in general and about Pirsig's DQ in particular. Ron: If I can explain myself, perhaps you may understand where I'm coming from And perhaps find my error in thinking. Ron: (from Wiki) Quality in everyday life and business, engineering and manufacturing has a pragmatic interpretation as the non-inferiority, superiority or usefulness of something. This is the most common interpretation of the word. Jorge: Agreed about being a common sense of the word. It doesn't mean though that quality of a thing can be determined unequivocally. Ron: The quantity of a thing can not be measured unequivocally either. You agreed that measurement requires an artificial limit to Allow it to function with any practicality precision is therefore Subjective. I see Quantity as well as Quality as a subjective measurement. Both scalar by virtue of relativity. Energy is no more a property of an atom Than redness is a property of an apple. You measure both in the same manner. Jorge: The 'superiority' of a car against another could be a judgment of maximum speed, or the luxury of its inside, the petrol yield or its safety. For some people one particular feature will be more important than another. The same may be said for a house or a fridge, and for all those things we are supposed to buy and that the manufacturers claim that theirs are 'superior' to others. If, from water fittings, we move to Art or Design or Education, the claim that something is superior to another can seldom be substantiated; which is why we talk of 'taste' in music, fashion or poetry. Taste is assumed to be related to quality but since no one can presume to be the arbiter of good or 'bad taste' quality remains elusive (except, of course, for professional critics). Ron: Or efficiency in energy? Energy is relative, Quality is relative. Ron: Strength is a quality which may be measured by precisely formulated mathematical equations. Quality may be measured according to you and thus defined. Ron: Energy is not at all much like DQ.? Jorge(current): No, not at all 'much like DQ'. Nothing of what you've said so far supports your claim and most of what it's been said in this exchange refutes it. Ron, I fail to see why are you so insistent in equating energy with DQ. I'd appreciate if you could put forward your reasons for doing so. It might very well be that I am missing something of what you've got in mind. If you were thinking of energy in some mystical or theological context, like the 'energos' of the old Greeks, there would be more room for argument; but you keep trying to equate it to energy as it is thought of in Physics. By doing so, in my opinion as an outsider, you are constraining DQ, the pillar of MOQ, into a term that can be fitted into the precise formulations of Thermodynamics, Newtonian or Quantum Mechanics. Suppose (and I don't see how you could do it)just suppose you succeed in your quest, in which way you think the MOQ would be the better for it? Ron: I think this is how MoQ stands as it is. Energy is mystical And also measurable, Quality is mystical but also measurable. Both methods of measure are subjective and relative. Both May not be defined in any absolute terms both assume infinite forms. Both are (information encoded in ever higher emergent patterns, not reducible to the lower substrate patterns.)-Ian Jorge: An entirely different path than yours is that taken by Ian Glendinning when he writes: (Hence in my world "quality" is pretty well equivalent to communicable information - where information is encoded in ever higher emergent patterns, not reducible to the lower substrate patterns.) One may agree or disagree with Ian's view but it has the virtue of not enclosing quality into a rigid formula; it leaves 'the door open' and leaves considerable room for maneuver in the formulation of the various terms included (comm. information, encoding, emergent patterns etc.) In the case of quality this flexibility and/or opaqueness is a virtue not a drawback. Ron: Energy has the same flexibility. Can you define it less the object or phenomena it refers to? What is energy Jorge? Jorge: Some people in the 19th century were so fascinated by the potentials of Science that tried to equate God with a giant machine that would follow the laws of Thermodynamics. Nice for Thermodynamics, but not so nice for Religion which would be debased to a branch of Physics. Your quest looks to me a bit like that. Ron: Then you do not understand my meaning. I leave you with: Define Energy . we should start from there. 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/
