Hi Bo and Joe, There are 7 logic gates you can use to construct a circuit. If you are interested, a quick overview is here http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Projects/Labview/gatesfunc/index.html
There really is an infinity of numbers between any two numbers you can name. Between 1 and 2 is 1.5. Between 1.5 and 2 is 1.75 Between 1.5 and 1.75 is 1.5199876439, then 1.5299876439, etc. An infinity of bigness or smallness. Who's to say that 1 is 1.00000000000 and not 1.000000000000001? We quickly get beyond our ability to measure with accuracy. It is a convenient fiction to say that something is 1.0 period. You could say that mathematics is the music of the universe. Any mathematician would cheerfully agree. Does that mean that we must suborn all metaphysics to mathematics? Does that negate the MoQ? No. Gravity is as real as the number system. Should we suborn the MoQ to that too? The number system and gravity are just high quality static values imho. [Bo] my belief is that the human (or any) brain capable of intelligence works like computers. I would think so, since it was human brains that invented them. We have no choice about the form our logic takes. It seems to be totally hard-wired into us. Like breathing. We cannot escape it any more than we can escape the S/O universe our scientists are struggling to understand. This is a question I have. What makes us think we are capable of understanding Quality or anything much about the nature of reality? Our minds are products of the very reality we are trying to understand. Do we have the necessary equipment to understand the nature of the predicament we find ourselves in? This goes to the "container logic" problem. We only have this one kind of logic to work with. What if there are others? Why not? When I was a kid my Dad used to blow my mind. What if our entire universe, everything we could see or detect, was but a grain of sand on an enormous beach in another, much bigger universe? How would we know? What is beyond the edge of the Universe? This is what I want Pirsig to explain. I have a suspicion about empty space. What if the matter and energy in the Universe is not the important thing, but the empty space between it? What is empty space anyway? Maybe the Universe is not expanding, but instead, empty space is growing? Let me ask you this. If time in the Universe were speeding up or slowing down, would we know that? Would it make any difference if a second were longer now that it was 10 years ago? Inquiring minds want to know. :) This is what metaphysics is all about. In databases there is what is known as metadata. It is data about data. Metaphysics is theories about theories. - Mary -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 10:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ? Mary and Joe 10 Jan Bo originally > > > But right now the said "logic itself" has brought me > > > some qualms: If 1+1=2 is something even Quality is subordinated, > > > then IT (logic) is the most basic reality there is. This we better > > > come to grips with. What do you think .....no new levels or roamings > > > though ;-) Mary > > I think you kinda have to take the 1+1=2 thing with a grain of salt. > > It's just a convenient short-hand because there is an infinity of > > numbers between any two other numbers. Everything we do in > > mathematics is based on ignoring the infinite, so Quality is not > > subordinate to 1+1=2, because this is not strictly true. Joe > Well said!. I do not know what "infinity of numbers" means? Is > this a corollary to saying that numbers are necessarily > undefined/defined, DQ/SQ as is all of reality? Are you reassuring > Bo that the ³good² of mathematics is DQ/SQ? I agree with Joe in the sense that I'm not sure of much in number theory or in anything of this kind, and not to argue or object seriously, but there is more than numbers to logic. There are something called "logical gates" that computers rely on, three such I seem to remember but not their names - hope Mary knows - anyway my belief is that the human (or any) brain capable of intelligence works like computers. Earlier experience stored in random access memory can be fetched into some "cache memory" where a central processor runs it through the gates and out comes "solutions" (for my crow how to hoist food balls by beak and claws) at the biological level not by language but perhaps by images, and other sense impressions. . Was it Krimel who said that our thinking isn't binary but analogous? But what does he know about the inner workings of the brain? Our human thinking which is language conveyed presents its end product analogously but the processing itself, the storing of memory, may well be by some on/off - firing of signals/not firing - 1/0 means? Anyway, this logic quandary "scared" me a bit, it can by no stretch of logic (sic) be called dynamic - it's the most static there are. It looked like something more fundamental than Quality, but after some use of logic (!!!) I wonder if it's not the inorganic "carbon", something that had to be in place before all inorganic patterns, not only the elementary particles (if there are any) but the "forces" (weak & strong nuclear, gravity, electro-magnetism) themselves - could form. In the same sense that inorganic carbon is what life was dependent on? BTW now I violate my own for Mary earlier that the MOQ's inorganic patterns has nothing to do with physics' particles, forces ...etc. but it's an emergency ;-) > Is evolution good? Is ignoring the infinite good? Is infinity > another aspect of good? Is this less logical than DQ/SQ? Pirsig > proposed DQ/SQ to be a logic for metaphysics. The undefined is a, > part of our logical thought process and is metaphysically true and > DQ is undefined.. This is a little different than saying > metaphysics ³ignores the infinite², since that places infinite > outside of logic. Is Evolution a laughing matter for a > mathematician? Does mathematical logic accept DQ/SQ? Too many question marks dear Joe, we are supposed to deliver some opinions. > I was watching an episode of Law and Order on television, and the > writer used the creation of a family of runaways in a large city as > equal in logic to the accepted notion of family. Murder, rape, > theft were OK for the street family. They became refugees when the > family they were born into became abusive. > My feeling about the show was that this was possibly OK if there > were a metaphysical ³good² beyond logic DQ. Anarchy, DQ/SQ, became > the rationalization for ³good². DQ is undefined and if SQ family > becomes evil, creative solutions for the social order of people is > good. A differing logic for a family relationship is not beyond > logical existence. Evolution DQ/SQ is moral if good is not > marginalized. How else could things change? > In metaphysics, DQ is undefined and for mathematics illogical. From > whence does DQ derive its logic so that DQ/SQ is a reasonable > metaphysics? These scenario of communities emerging if/when civilization breaks down, I believe is something like a lapse back to social value if the intellectual "latch" fails. The societies that emerges are the REAL unhampered by intellect societies with infinitely strict codes, much like the Warizistan tribes. Murder of other tribes, rape likewise, but immensely strong social codes of behavior within the group. No crime at all Ok me chatting Bodvar. 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/
