Ron, The reasons I got interested in information modelling are pretty much the same reasons I got interested in the MoQ. Engineers are life's SOMist pragmatists so it's difficult to tempt them away from objective ontologies of things that exist in "their" world - and the philosophic foundations of most modelling are largely Aristotelian. I do however get opportunities to slip in MOQish doubts and realizations about the intangibile qualities of many of the "things" the business mostly deals in - evolving hearts and minds. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it ;-)
Ian On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM, X Acto<[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds like MoQ theory goes a long way in that sort of environment > do you get a chance to employ it? > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:35:15 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Ironistic Metaphysics > > Ron, > > BTW - that correction also means the Lorenz transformation is not what > it appears. > It can only be some as yet unexplained mathematical oddity until it is. > The "cosmic asymmetries" are a complete fudge at the moment. > > I used to design and analyze parts for military aircraft ... once upon > a time (for a year or two, nearly 30 years ago) ;-) > Been mainly in the Oil, Gas, Refining, Energy & Chemicals engineering > business - the last decade in information systems and modelling. > > Regards > Ian > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, X Acto<[email protected]> wrote: >> Ian, Thanks for the clarification, Wiki is usually the fastest way >> to gain semi-reliable info, enough to prove my point >> about Bo's usage of the term anyhoo. But as you >> state, it takes alittle digging in other sources to get >> a more accurate explaination. >> >> You design fighters for the RAF don't you? >> >> -Ron >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:14:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [MD] Ironistic Metaphysics >> >> Bo, you sir, are the master of misinformation and a hack. Simply >> muck-spreading a meme. >> >> That "surprising fact" about travelling at different speeds leading to >> different relative time is a myth however many wiki pages and popular >> science books say otherwise. It would be plain paradoxical if it were >> true. >> >> It's the absolute acceleration not the relative velocity, that >> determines which of the relatively moving observers record slower or >> faster time, distance and ordering of events. Relatively they are >> always both moving at the same velocity relative to each other. >> >> Even wikipedia gets this right if you look at the right pages between >> the right edits. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox >> >> The weirdness is that there does in fact appear to be an inertial >> frame of reference for the absolute acceleration "at a given location >> in a so-called expanding universe". But of course science largely >> chooses to ignore this inconvenience when applying for billion dollar >> funding post-Copenhagen. Come back Einstein. >> >> Regards >> Ian >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, X Acto<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Bo: >>> The MOQ is a meta-metaphysics compared to the Aristotelian- >>> Academical term, but as I try to convey, it robs SOM of its "M" rank >>> and thereby degrades it to a sub-set of its own. Some people show >>> their inability to pull themselves by hair or bootstraps out of SOM by >>> not seeing this "transformation". To move from Newton physics to >>> Einstein's needs a set of equations called Lorenz Transformation, the >>> SOL is such a procedure from SOM to MOQ. >>> >>> Ron: >>> >>> The Lorenz transformation has nothing to do with transforming >>> calculations from newtonian to relativity. >>> >>> "In physics, the Lorentz transformation precisely describes how, >>> according to the theory of special relativity, two observers' >>> varying measurements of space and time can be converted into >>> each other's frame of reference. It reflects the surprising >>> fact that observers moving at different velocities report >>> different distances, passage of time, and in some cases even >>> different orderings of events. The Lorentz transformation was >>> the result of attempts by the eponymous Hendrik Lorentz and >>> others to explain observed properties of light propagating in >>> what was presumed to be the luminiferous aether; Albert Einstein >>> later reinterpreted the transformation as a statement about >>> the nature of space and time themselves and derived it from >>> the axioms of relativity. >>> -wiki >>> >>> You sir, are the master of misinformation and a hack. >>> >>> The SOL procedure, as far as I have been able get from you, >>> it a semantic one of stripping the "M" from SOM and adding it >>> to "M"OQ. quite a complicated procedure Bo, what mathematical >>> formula did you use? >>> >>> For you, using the gallery metaphor, MoQ is the only painting in the gallery >>> a bigger one than the previouse painting that was the only painting in the >>> gallery >>> which now hangs as a detail might hang on the larger painting of the MoQ. >>> Bo's MoQ. Yay Bo. >>> >>> But the MoQ I subscribe to. the one that Pirsig presents really isn't a >>> painting at all >>> but the ability to recognize and value other paintings, it's the knowledge >>> that there is no >>> one "real" "true" painting that they are all true in their own context and >>> their value >>> is relative to my own context. >>> >>> This creates a "radical metaphysic" >>> >>> Bo's "Meta-Metaphysic" is culturalcentric, limited and falls to the same >>> absolutism that SOM does. >>> It produces ideas of western cultural superiority. >>> >>> He produces no support for his assertions other than his rather limited >>> reading of Pirsigs work >>> and a handfull of vastly misunderstood theories and terms. But he seems to >>> have learned >>> a very important aspect of "truthiness" that hammering on a single >>> statement long enough >>> will give it creedance and an illusion of verifyablity and acceptance. >>> Where, in P.T. Barnum >>> style, the illusion of self importance and granduer go's miles in selling >>> snake oil, the aire >>> of acerdimic authority is more persuasive than actually knowing what the >>> hell one is talking about. >>> >>> >>> but we love our Bo just the same >>> >>> >>> and his struggle with SOM's testicals >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/ >> >> >> >> >> 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/ > > > > > 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/
