On May 27, 2009, at 9:27:24 AM, [email protected] wrote: Marsha, Dan, William Blake and Mark Smith.
To start with Marsha's of May 26, > > Time and change have a relationship, yes? What does it actually mean to > > state that everything is always in a state of change? Everything! I'm > > thinking of the water analogy: If everything is water, and there is > > nothing that is not water, then there is no meaning to water, for there > > is no way of distinguishing a difference between water and nonwater. > > Seems if you translate that into change, then what humans have actually > > defined as change is illusion. And if our definition of change is an > > illusion, how can anything be conceived of as constant, as in > > Einstein's 'C', when everything is changing? Against what is it > > measured? Can you untangle this mess between water, change and time? Agree, the "everything is ..." postulate is stale and that goes for "Reality is Quality" too. Pirsig makes it sound as that is the revolution and the MOQ some secondary afterthought, but the two are inexticably connected. Markhsmith or Willblake (can't you use a name instead of these cryptic e-mail abbreviations?) responded to Marsha's above. Willblake2 The "I" has no name, because it does not exist. You can call me Mark. All the same to me. > If Einstein is correct, then everything is energy. Everything is > transforming into something else continuously. That is change. But > does anything really change? Physics states that no energy is ever > lost or created; there is conservation. So at some level nothing > changes, always the same energy. At our level, Things to seem to > change. An illusion? I suppose, as much as everything else is. The > word is confusing. If everything is an illusion then so is that > statement. Don't believe anything I write (not even my telling you > not to believe anything I write). Einstein revolutionized physics by his "Energy Metaphysics" where the basic axiom was "Matter is Energy" (E=mc2) but this does not say that matter and energy are identical, there is an internal schism between dynamic energy (released in nuclear bombs)and static energy (matter as we know it) And this is what all is about in his "metaphysics", the said equation contains the schism. Willblake2 Matter and energy are identical in the same way that water, ice, and steam are identical, just different forms of the same thing. I don't understand why this is a schism since it is thought to be internally consistent. Matter is compressed energy living in time, light is timeless. What we feel with the nuclear bomb, or the sun, is that conversion. Part of the equation for time dilation becomes zero very quickly. Particle decay is a slower process of the same thing. Please explain your understanding of the schism, does it relate to Quality? This pertains to Pirsig's (silly) "Quality as Dynamic and the MOQ as static". The "Quality=Reality" postulate is part and parcel of the MOQ, because it does not mean a thing without the static counterpoint. To speak of a Quality independent of the MOQ is both impossible and counterproductive, as if speaking of Energy independent of the said dynamic/static context. Thanks Mr.Smith for this excellent metaphor. Yes, I can see that, just as light is a reality because we can feel it (a metaphor for me). While we cannot define Quality with words, we can feel it. Is that right? NB One thing however, the physical world is MOQ's "inorganic level" and MOQ's dynamic/static schism has nothing to do with energy's two forms. All inorganic patterns be it ordinary matter or forces (gravity, electromagnetism ... whatever) are "static inorganic patterns". Willblake2 I think I see what you are saying. Is time an inorganic or static pattern? For Einstein, time is defined as the distance between objects. Is what is between the static patterns a static pattern? Things cannot exist without the spaces in between, in fact it is the space that defines the thing, like two sides of a coin. Is SQ like the whole coin, and the two sides the static patterns are objects and space? This is not a trick question, I am interested in learning more. I have had some personal success in equating SQ to the Yin and Yang, at least in my understanding of Quality. I have a deep feeling for Yin and Yang, and would love to see Quality that way. > So the water analogy. Everything in this world are like waves on > an ocean. They appear from nowhere on the surface, and disappear. > A constant flux of waves, just like matter, always changing shapes. Big, > small. I'll bet you have some of the electrons I had a while ago. They > are yours now, keep them for a while. The waves are created from the > great ocean, arising from it returning to it, but the water is always > there to create new ones. Does the wave try to survive as long as it can? > I don't think so, it just is. Water and (water) waves is a very good analogy to illustrate the DQ/SQ relationship (not wind waves however, these may be likened to the various static patterns) but perhaps "standing waves" as in a river. Or - better - electromagnetic waves because these propagates in no known medium at all and shows the superfluity of Quality after the MOQ ... and the impossibility of it outside the MOQ. I think of myself as a temporary standing wave, so what you say makes sense to me. Is what you are saying that MoQ is considered thinking about Quality? > The speed of light is constant, because time disappears at that speed. > Time gets slower and slower the faster you go, until poof! we are at > the speed of light. Hard to change things with no time. If two beams of light meet, then the relative speed between the two must be twice that of light .... or?. I'm a bit rusty on Relativity and don't remember, no trap. Time is zero for a photon, so relative to one photon, the other one is moving at the speed of light, and visa versa. From our viewpoint, the diminishing distance between two photons would occur at twice the speed of light. This is not part of relativity, because that diminishing distance is not moving. However, this concept does have some potential for metaphysical thought, thanks for that. Mark Bodvar "Bo" Skutvik 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/
