On 7/3/09 12:30 PM, "david buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote: Krimel and all: Ron posted a section from chapter 12 of Lila, including this part: In the past the logic has been that if chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of cause and effect, then chemistry professors must follow the laws of cause and effect too. But this logic can be applied in a reverse direction. We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation that chemistry professors are, in general, moral. If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too. The difference between these two points of view is philosophic, not scientific. The question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it has to or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does. dmb says: The logic of the past reduces chemistry professors to atoms and, as you can see, the MOQ reverses that reductionism.
Hi Ron, DMB, and All, The computer uses the logic of the SOM. 0 is undefined in its positive or negative connotation. DQ/SQ, MOQ, is a new creation in logic. It is not the substance/accident logic of SOM. Science has spectacularly computerized the use of a mathematical language. How has MOQ influenced language? How does MOQ improve logic so that you say: ³the MOQ reverses that reductionism?² What is the change to logic in the MOQ? The impossibility of the division of 1 by 0 has not changed for science. Does the MOQ have a new mathematics of evolution so that ³the wants to² or the ³has to² of an electron is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does? Yes! For the MOQ the undefined S of SOM has been changed. I no longer perceive S as undefined. The L of SOL is now defined/undefined. E.G., division of 1 by 0 is undefined in perception, while the statement of division in Conception ignores the perception of defined/undefined and concludes that you cannot divide by 0. In MOQ it is easier to see that what is undefined in discourse is the undefined perception of L in SOL with conception remaining defined. The added element in MOQ is the undefined perception of evolution, while there is no equivocation in the SO conception of change! Joe On 7/3/09 12:30 PM, "david buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Krimel and all: > > Ron posted a section from chapter 12 of Lila, including this part: > > In the past the logic has been that if chemistry professors are composed > exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of cause and effect, > then chemistry professors must follow the laws of cause and effect too. But > this logic can be applied in a reverse direction. We can just as easily deduce > the morality of atoms from the observation that chemistry professors are, in > general, moral. If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry > professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must > exercise choice too. The difference between these two points of view is > philosophic, not scientific. The question of whether an electron does a > certain thing because it has to or because it wants to is completely > irrelevant to the data of what the electron does. > > dmb says: > > The logic of the past reduces chemistry professors to atoms and, as you can > see, the MOQ reverses that reductionism. 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/
