[Arlo] "Static inorganic patterns" are merely those that are very, very, very highly probable. They are not "held static", they are "static" by virtue of having an extreme degree of probability based on subatomic particles responding to their environment.
All things tend towards patterns of repeated preferences; atoms and squirrels and people and cultures and math equations. But this never removes "chance" from the zero-moment. Agree? [Krimel] Yes, following Newton there was this brief hope that Natural Laws could be identified and chance could be driven from nature in general and human affairs in particular. That dream was short lived and instead it was realized the natural laws are probability statements reflecting very high degrees of probability. [Arlo] Well, I'd say "nothing" is dynamic. Period. Dynamic is the undefined uncertainty of the zero-moment. Whenever we see "something" we are seeing "static patterns", patterns of preferred response. But in the sense that these "static patterns" are always responding to that zero-moment, they are always in a state of flux on some level, in some ways. "Static" is an illusion. It is a Gestalt that we see on the flux of the cosmos. [Krimel] Exactly, "static" and "dynamic" are complementary terms that describe relative degrees of uncertainty. Just as static patterns like mountain change over time and even something as solid as a diamond is composes of whirring carbon atoms the world is Heraclitian, ever changing. "Static" just means changing slowly our within boundaries and "dynamic" mean changing fast or varying widely. Either term may be applied to the same phenomena depending on one's perspective. Also it is important to note that nothing can be completely dynamic either. For example, efforts to develop a way of generating truly random numbers have proven difficult because every known technique produces some kind of internal bias. And even if such a technique were found, it might not function as intended since a purely random process can produce a trillion heads if a coin is tossed often enough. That would certainly "appear" to be biased and not very helpful. [Krimel] Right the MoQ is not about a particular map. It is about cartography. [Arlo] Yep. That's how I see it too. [Krimel] Why do you think this is so difficult, especially for people familiar with Pirsig? 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/
