Hi Joe,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > IMHO Mathematics is a language of physics. I am not aware of the existence > of a metaphysical math. Math is a form of metaphysics. It is creates symbols to depict reality, in the same way we create symbols in the form of words to depict reality. There is absolutely no difference, none. A mathematician sees the constructs of math in the same we see the constructs of metaphysical language. Do you think that symbols such as E or m or C really exist in nature? Of course not, we created them to try to predict and build. Some symbols work better than others, but physics is always proven wrong, for that is the nature of science. Question and Disprove, Question and Disprove. This is what has happened throughout the ages, and we are right in the middle of those ages. So a metaphysical math is the same as a metaphysical language. If you think that metaphysics is more than language, then please explain that to me. > > It seems a little disingenuous equating the logic of mathematics to > experience. There is an emotional indefinable tonality in language, > oratory, that is missing in the logic for written mathematics, and the > conclusions of math can be written as well as spoken. Emotional indefinable tonality? Again you are mixing up your adjectives. Tonality is defined in the dictionary. What then is indefinable tonality? It could be a squirrel for all I know. It would seem that by using the word which symbolizes "to not be able to define" you want to express something, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what that is. But let's take your adjective Emotional. Usually adjectives are used to help define something. If you are qualifying something like tonality with something that has no definition (such as Emotion), where does that take you? If anything, you need to use better words than those to explain what exactly you are getting at. In written mathematics there are enough assumptions to carry logic. If you are referring to illogical language, then you just need to make a few more assumptions. Get it? > > Eyes, ears, touch, taste, smell add content beyond the logic of signs. The > logic used in Math does not describe the logic of the senses, and > indefinable X appeals only to intellectual logic not sensory experience. Signs are only logical because we make a number of assumptions. Without those assumptions, there would be no logic what-so-ever to a sign. We speak of taste based on assumptions as well. If we did not assume that taste was what was happening in our mouths, then we would be out of luck in talking about it. Thus, we DEFINE taste as that which happens in our mouth. We then further DEFINE it in thousands of ways. There are many different kinds of taste. If we have a taste that is completely indefinable, we do not speak of it. This unspeakable taste accounts for 10 times as many tastes as we do define. But have you ever heard of a taste which you cannot define? I do not think so, you simply experience it. If it is important enough you create a word for it, like all of those cheesy adjectives that are used by wine snobs. > > What is DQ/SQ logic in evolution? Computation uses the unknown yet > metaphysics still seems a useful discipline for studying reality MOQ. In math there are always Unknowns (they are called variables); that is the principle purpose of Math, to create knowns. We define the unknowns in math by equating it to the knowns. A=B+C. We have now defined the unknown A with B+C. Get it? How can metaphysics be useful if one doesn't know what one is talking about. We create the unknown Q by dividing it into SQ and DQ. This is no different from creating the concept of apple pie by dividing it into apple and crust. None what-so-ever. If you think that there is, then you have become mesmerized by language and think that it is much much more than it is. It is just a convention based on assumptions that allows us to interact. Nothing more. > > What is the reality of logic in a DQ/SQ metaphysical discussion? > Mathematical logic cannot compute the DQ/SQ reality of evolution, levels in > existence. Words are defined, and imaginary numbers are used to enhance a > logical process. This works in a mathematical discipline where everything > is defined. It does not work so well in language where analogies suggest a > different medium. Language cannot compute the DQ/SQ reality of evolution either, So What? Language simply gives us a basis for interaction. Now, you say that words are defined. However, you then try to use the word undefinable to negate that very statement. Is Emotion defined or undefined? If it is undefined, then it is not a word. Maybe it is a painful wart. If you cannot define it, then what are you doing using it as a word? How about TZch-copsulanti/farcinaturalationallies.mqfor? Why don't you use that word instead of Emotion. At least it would be undefinable. You touch on analogies which is headed in the right direction. In reality, we cannot define anything, only provide analogies. Remember ZAMM? Everything is an analogy (and not just what Socrates said). Why do you think that Pirsig lost his mind? We define a tree as a "trunk, branches, and leaves". Is a tree simply a "trunk, branches, and leaves"? Absolutely not! It is much much more than that. In fact defining it as a "trunk branches and leaves" simplifies a tree to being almost nothing. If we adulate language to this extent for everything, we loose most of what it is like to be here in this world. Pirsig definitely cautions against the pitfalls of language. However, such caution has been suggested since man began to talk. The Egyptians thought that by creating a word for something we dominate and own it. We do the same thing now. "Yes, I know exactly what a Sun is because I have a word for it". How ridiculous is that? > > Pirsig suggests DQ/SQ undefined/defined, reality. When I studied math it > was not called metaphysics. Well, I hope I have made my point above. Pirsig creates the ANALOGY of DQ/sq to help explain what he is talking about. What he is talking about is much much deeper than that. Try not to be bewitched by language. It is very soporific and turns you into a Zombie. If you want me to define Zombie I won't, because you know what it is even without the word. > Best regards, and good luck with your metaphysics. Mark > > > On 8/21/11 9:53 PM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Math is just a language just as >> German is. Do you think that imaginary numbers really exist? They >> can't, that is why they are called imaginary, we created them to >> fulfill a type of logic. However we certainly use them to make very >> important things such as iPads. In exactly the same way, we create >> concepts such as awareness to provide meaning and predictions. My >> intent was simply to start at the beginning. If you did not like that >> assumption just think of it as "Essence is the source of Reality". > > > 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 > 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
