Hi again
On 2010-07-12 18:46, david buchanan wrote:
Magnus said to Dan: Of course the MoQ isn't reality itself, it's an
intellectual pattern that describes reality in much the same way a
physical formula does.
However, in the same way a physical formula does its best to reflect
how physics will behave given certain preconditions, so will also the
MoQ do its best to reflect how reality will behave.
So, just as it is silly to assume that there *isn't* a sun that is
shining over us every day, that it's somehow just a grand illusion,
it's equally silly to assume that the levels doesn't have any real
correspondence in reality.
dmb says:
Well, no. I think it's very important to understand that getting rid
of this idea of correspondence to reality is part of getting rid of
SOM.
No. They have nothing to do with each other.
When you say "correspondence to reality", you mean the transformation
from, say, inorganic experience, to an intellectual understanding in
your head, right? So, yes, in SOM-land, only an "objective" such
intellectual understanding of the physical reality is valid.
But if we investigate what has happened from the inorganic experience to
the intellectual understanding of it, there are lots of steps:
An inorganic "measurement" takes place. This is an inorganic quality
event where the object is the reality we want to look at, and the
subject is the inorganic instrument. The instrument shows us the result
on a display or some such, and we read it using our eyes (which in this
case is a biological event supported by an inorganic event).
Then the biological "seeing" event is mapped into an intellectual
pattern via our social language. In that event, the intellectual object
is the number on the display and the subject is your brain.
When we lay it out like this, we can plainly see that what we ultimately
get into our heads, is always the subjective side of the intellectual
experience. *But* since we know that each event requires one subject and
one object, we can - using the MoQ -, infer that there *was* an object
and we have measured it.
What we can also say is that the object has been changed by this same
event. QM has taught us that we can't measure anything without
disturbing it. The MoQ says a similar thing about the event and that is
that each object is also a subject from its point of view. Perhaps QM
and MoQ are actually telling us the same thing, but in different languages.
So in that sense, we have to give up the correspondence between reality
and our understanding of it. But *only* in that sense. It has nothing to
do with SOM. And even if we need to nudge on the correspondence a bit
because of it, we can do pretty much to circumvent the disturbance.
If you disagree with anything of the above, we can start there.
So, what I'm trying to say is that objects and subjects are just as real
in the MoQ, they just come a bit later in the chain.
Magnus
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/md/archives.html
