Hi Andre. Is E=MC2, (an intellectual pattern of value) 'shapeless', 'vague', 'ill-organised' and therefore without definite form? The MOQ would simply say: E=MC2 is a scientific truth which is provisional.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes correct , Andre.This is however,by its possible implications on the physikal field, not simple to formulate or to recognise. Allow me to add this,as a clarification. Einstein himself declared it to good to be true...., turned out to be true all the way.Since it turned out to be so,it not only became provisional but also Conditional, E= MC2 can only change if the conditions in the universe are changing. Later on,the possibility of the so called c/p violation did prove the conditional/provisional certainty of E=MC2. The formula is the biggest scientifical discovery ever made, it is the most static/dynamic pattern at the same time. What it says is this. matter is energy , energy is matter. UNDOUBTABLE, no way around it, exept for the c/p violation. The informationparadox is derived from it. Information is as well a form of matter as of energy, therefore it is impossible to destroy information once it exists. Take a barcode as example.cut it in the lenght several times, each part will still be readable, cut it further to pieces thin as a hair, under the microscope the laser will still read the barcode, ask yourself now, did i destroy information by cutting up the barcode,or did i multiply it, by shredding it to more pieces. The correct answer is that the cutting proces on itself is a form of information. There is more info hidden in a cutting proces then in a non-cutting proces. Hawking is always clowning around with shit like this. One of his conclusions on the informationparadox is that a universe cannot contain another universe, if one of them contains more information.... see the containerparadox worked out?( Dan mentioned once, a book contains itself) very correct, but never more. Anyway.all neutrons,positrons,quarks,electrons are the same everywhere in the universe,this goes for a flower,a rock, a brain, everywere, even on Pluto. Needless to say that it is important for the moq to observe Inorganic, =>neutrons, positrons,quarks , electrons are the same. Organic,=> neutrons, positrons, quarks, electrons are the same. Biological=> idem. Intellectual=> idem. There are no possible exeptions.ever.So , i mentioned it once to Krimel, We will always have the need for transparancy between the levels. If we don't we can only have an alienated level, not responing to the others or responding to the same laws of nature anymore. The transparancy is embedded by the patterns of nature itself. Adrie 2011/3/21 Andre Broersen <[email protected]> > Marsha to Andre: > > > Amorphous means to be without "definite" form. > > Andre: > Yeah, BECAUSE (from my Oxford dictionary): 'shapeless', 'vague', > 'ill-organised'. > > In Pirsig's MOQ there is nothing 'definitive' Marsha, as you hopefully > know. 'Definitive' meaning 'decisive', 'unconditional', 'final'. > > Is E=MC2, (an intellectual pattern of value) 'shapeless', 'vague', > 'ill-organised' and therefore without definite form? The MOQ would simply > say: E=MC2 is a scientific truth which is provisional. > > As Pirsig argues:'Science always contains an eraser, a mechanism whereby > new Dynamic insight could wipe out old static patterns without destroying > science itself. Thus science, unlike orthodox theology, has been capable of > continuous, evolutionary growth. As Phaedrus had written on one of his > slips, 'The pencil is mightier than the pen'. (LILA, p 226) > > This is a wonderful example of the distinction and interplay of DQ/sq. As > mentioned in my post to Mary, to conflate them is to render both terms > meaningless, and, by implication the MOQ as well. > > Is looks as though you still hang on to DQ is sq and sq is DQ. > > In trying to defend yourself you're playing with words again Marsha...but > it is not a game anymore. As a contributor to this discuss about Pirsig's > MOQ you are being dishonest. And if you are suggesting that the example used > above is 'just my interpretation' then all further discussion is meaningless > and useless. > > > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
