On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:34 PM, [email protected] wrote: > [Craig, previously] >> Take Pluto. It was "down-graded" from a planet. If you think that thereby >> reality changed, >> you see a relationship [between patterns & thinking], if you think it >> didn't, you don't. > > . > [Marsha] >> The Pluto pattern doesn't exist without some relationship to >> thinking. Does it? > > Craig: > IMHO Pluto's patterns are constituted by its interactions with other > patterns. When the platypus > was discovered people argued over whether it was a furry reptile, an > egg-laying mammal or even > possible. But the platypus went on its merry way. So too Pluto's interaction > with the sun & > other planets is more significant than its interaction with our thinking. > Though there must be some| > possible interaction, however indirect, between Pluto & us, for Pluto to be > real.
Marsha: Pluto is real if man measures it to be real, and if man measures a muon to be real it becomes real. It seems to me thinking has a relationship within that measuring process all the way down. ___ 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
