On Tuesday 25 March Joe writes: Hi All,
Evolution is not a syllogism. Different levels are involved from lower to higher. The lower has no definition for the higher level, which speaks an undefined language to the lower level. Is mathematics a universal language? The higher is undefined and cannot enter into a lower syllogism. Logic fails when confronted by reality. Mathematical reality cannot explain evolution. Magnus proposes a dynamic Big Bang to start mathematical calculations. IMO the Social Level lies outside of mathematical calculation. What? Counting the population doesn¹t matter? Idiot! Do you mean that mathematics does not add to what I know? Idiot! Individual consciousness is an existential level of evolution to the social level. Individual consciousness starts a parallel octave of evolution of S only. It modifies O (gorilla) for its own purposes. Intellect, higher social, and higher intellectual levels are of S only. Wait a minute intellect is SO, and social is SO. Idiot! You can only train a chimp so far. So how is metaphysics speaking an undefined language? How can I know what you are talking about? Value! Mystical value is outside of mathematics. Yes, but not very far! E,G. quantum! Just far enough to show that evolution is not a syllogism. There is no therefore in evolution to the social level! Only an apple and sleep! Joe On 11/25/08 12:26 PM, "X Acto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bo: >> Not describing how things really are, is impossible. Forwarding a >> theory that opens by declaring "..this is NOT how things are" is >> stillborn. > > Steve: > > Not at all. > > Albert Einstein: > "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, > however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our > endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to > understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the > moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the > case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism > which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may > never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain > his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with > the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the > meaning of such a comparison." > > Bo: > I'm not rying to play the Sophist, but at this high ground there are some > strange "inside out" turning of metaphysical socks. > > Ron: > The turning of the sock you mention is the shifting from the particular > to the universal. The whole arguement is that you insist that Quality > may be universally defined when Pirsig and the rest of us say that > Quality is of a particular expereince and may not be argued to > the universal.. > > Pyrrhonian skeptic Sextus Empiricus first questioned induction, reasoning that > a universal rule could not be established from an > incomplete set of particular instances. He wrote[1]: > > "when they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by means of > induction, they will effect this by a review of either > all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction will be > insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the > induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, they > will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars > are infinite and indefinite." > > from wiki > > > > 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/ 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/
