Jorge: Yes, but there is another aspect of this "How sure do you need to be?" It concerns the so-called 'range of application' of various theories;
[Krimel] If I catch your drift here, this is how I understand 'beauty' in Science. Evolution is a beautiful theory in virtue of the simplicity of its account of such a range of phenomena. Jorge: I mentioned one example in another Post a propos of rocks: no need to use Quantum mechanics regarding the position of a rock in space when Classical mechanics amply gives an answer within the "how sure do we need to be". [Krimel] I agree. Quantum effects are only a particular source of uncertainty. There are many others. Jorge: I wouldn't say though that this is a trait characteristic of the Science of the past 50 years; it's an approach extensively used in Science from much earlier on (150?). [Krimel] All people throughout time have confronted uncertainty. They have offered sacrifice to it and wagered on it. In the 1600s Probability Theory was born of Pascal's effort to assist a gambler friend by showing how often winning dice throws were likely to be cast. The shift in thinking I refer to comes from the realization that the future is unknowable 'in principle'. Well into the first half of the last century it was believed that prefect prediction was the fruit of determinism. Heisenberg, Gödel, Van Neumann, Lorenz and Mandelbrot converge to say it ain't so. I take the principle in 'in principle' to be a metaphysical one. It is a metaphysical principle supported by precise measurement and logical rigor. It is understood in the gut of every person. Consider the 'butterfly effect'. Here is a myth, metaphor, fable that did not exist 50 years ago. It is a meme that spread like virus among refugees. It is a koan that makes each student who hears it want to slap their master. Krimel earlier: 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. Jorge: I see that Ron Kulp asked you to clarify on that paragraph. I'll wait for your clarification before commenting on what seems to me rather sweeping claims. [Krimel] I think I answered at different part of Ron's question. It is my view that the MoQ says right up front that reality can not be pigeonholed. Quality can not be defined. It places metaphysical uncertainty dead center. I believe that Pirsig's first metaphysical chopping of Quality into static and dynamic is a potentially sound move. But only if we scrub the warm fuzzies off of DQ. The result is a reality that appears to us as patterns in flux. Krimel: A pattern is a relationship or set of relationships that is consistent over time. Jorge: If I may amplify again? The above would gain more generality by saying "relationships consistent over time and/or space" The most classical of patterns are thought of as units recurring in space. This generalization is important because it is, may be, through patterns, that MOQ could bridge with the ideas of Rayner and others of the Inclusional Group. [Krimel] How about: A pattern is a relationship or set of relationships persistant in space/time. Jorge: It seems to me that here you are talking too many liberties with the senses of "static and dynamic" . Within the senses given to those words in common-use English, people would hardly say that hail or snow conforms to static patterns. As I kept insisting in the discussion about Patterns, everyone is free to choose meanings not in common use but then, for the sake of clarity one should declare explicitly what the adopted meanings are. [Krimel] My argument is that the terms static and dynamic do not have special meaning in the MoQ. Quality breaks down into things that wiggle and things that hold still. The terms do have special usage in the MoQ as when one speaks of snow as a static pattern. Jorge: I am not qualified to answer for the MOQ but, as long as Science is concerned, in my understanding of it, Science very much deals with a "world in flux". I can not recall of any equilibrium (static) situation which may not be described as the result of opposing processes at differing rates or opposing forces. Classical examples are chemical equilibrium, planets in fixed orbits, etc The very same examples of water as liquid, solid or vapor, you use, are usually described as results of opposing rates of evaporation, condensation and crystallization; even more: our humble water comes to be a liquid at room temperature as a result of opposing processes of clustering and de-clustering which proceed at different rates in the liquid range. [Krimel] Exactly! I will say right up front I know nothing of the specifics of fluid dynamics but I believe that it says that all fluids conform to certain complex but static patterns of behavior. It deals with patterns within flux in liquids, gases, electricity, plasma... What is critical is not the specific objective events but the relationships of viscosity, resistance (SQ) with convection, flow and energy transduction (DQ). Jorge: But such an approach can be applied only on the understanding of DQ as uncertainty. If you don't mind me saying so, you haven't satisfactorily made your case about such an identity in your Post. Perhaps I am missing arguments of yours posted earlier?. [Krimel] I have discussed this several times over the past three years but never tire of doing so. I appreciate your contribution towards helping me clarify. 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/
