Jorge and Ron, Gentlemen, mind if I jump in? This raises a few issues I have pursued at length here in the past. Perhaps I will have better luck this time...
[Ron wrote (Fe. 23)] "Well put Jorge, Isn't this where we stand with Quality? Isn't Quality outside the scope of our ability to define It? Only when we have isolated measurable data may we Accurately define Energy or Quality, but isolation And measurability are human conventions. If the system is not clearly defined the equation becomes useless. Therefore both quality and energy must be defined to be useful. But this definition is not it. This definition limits it to what is being measured." [Jorge] I do agree that "Quality is outside the scope of our ability to define it." Also in that "isolation and measurability are human conventions". [Krimel] Whatever system of thought one adopts will include elements that can not be defined by the system. This lack of definition introduces a degree of uncertainty into the system of thought. Logical rigor, precision of measurement, meditative practices, prayer and flipping coins are all frequently used to reduce uncertainty but that is all they can do. Uncertainty (the undefined) can not be undone. It can only be managed. [Jorge] Quality, particularly as it is seen by the MOQ, resists definition and measurement and we'd better leave it like that. Little is to be gained, and much to be lost, by attempts to encompass it in precise (and hence, necessarily narrow) formulations. In this it stands together with Beauty which has lost nothing of its power as an idea for being equally reluctant. [Krimel] When we say for example that Quality can not be defined, I take that to mean that Quality can not be precisely defined. Any definition will exclude something important or include something false. To say that Quality is undefined is not a demand for perfect precision; it is a recognition that there are fundamental limitations on how precise we can be. It should be taken as a realization that imprecision and uncertainty are the heart of the matter. We should never ask, "Are you sure?" We should always ask, "How sure are you?" And in the end, the Quality of the answers we give and get depends entirely on the question, "How sure do you need to be?" [Jorge} ... to restrict Energy to the field of metrics makes it possible to relate it to other physical variables by unambiguous mathematical equations. - Jorge continued... It's a sobering thought that when we say "Energy as understood by Physics" we actually mean, as understood by Physics today, which is different than the way we understood it 200 years ago and, very likely, the way we'll understand it 100 years from now. The same to be said for any other of the so-called basic physical concepts. [Krimel] Science answers the question, "How sure do you need to be?" by saying, "As sure as we can be right now!" The science of the past 50 year differs from the science of the past because it fully embraces this. This is best illustrated by Laplace, who claimed essentially that with perfectly precise knowledge we would gain perfect prediction. He seems to accept that such precision is possible "in principle" and that uncertainty can be eliminated. Ironically while making such claims, Laplace was developing probability theories which would contribute to the demonstration that such precision is "in principle" impossible. It is my position that if properly applied the MoQ is a first step in providing a metaphysical unpinning to modern science. It should aspire to become what Pirsig said it would be: a metaphysics of randomness. A pattern is a relationship or set of relationships that is consistent over time. We speak of Static patterns in terms of their degrees of consistency over time. Dynamic Quality (which I vigorously maintain is not to be identified with Quality, regardless of whether or not Pirsig agrees to their conflation) is recognized in the degree of inconsistency within and among static patterns. Rocks are more static that clouds. The more static a cloud becomes the more rocklike it is, until it falls to earth as rain or hail or snow, which are all static patterns with differing degrees of stability. The more dynamic these drops or stones or flakes are, the more likely they are to evaporate and become cloudlike. Increasingly I think science and I hope the MoQ, embraces a Heraclitian, Dynamic world in flux. I think Pirig's picture of an indefinable, unpredictable, uncertain reality composed of patterns and relationships (SQ) in flux (DQ) has much to offer but is not generally understood in these terms. Instead too much ink is spilled on the four levels which seem to mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. For my part I think the most we can make of them is to understand them in terms of rates of change and sources of uncertainty (DQ). 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/
