Hi Marsha, I thought I answered your questions as they came up, but I guess I thought wrong. My apologies.
Non-locality falls out of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. Sociology treats individuals as statistics which means the individual does not exist locally. It is simply a product of the math used. Nothing cosmic going on there, unless one is wedded to math. Then I suppose one would be convinced that the math is reality. Your "stable pattern are relative only if you want to see them that way. I do not see them that way. There is no need to always be comparing everything. I find that approach to be limited. But, if you have a love for equations, then I can see your need to equate things. Each to his/her own. I do not consider my view to be relative to yours. Sent laboriously from an iPhone, Mark On Nov 27, 2011, at 10:17 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > There are serious questions, from me and to you, in this post. They are the > sentences with the questions marks at the end. - What do you think words > are for? What are you searching for? What 'facade' are you talking about? > How does the concept of 'unreal' enter into this dialogue? - You have > generally been ignoring the questions I have presented to you for a long > time. I no longer take your posts to be serious, and no longer feel the need > to answer any of them. > > Btw, Quality may be compared to quantum theory's non-locality. Static > quality exists in stable patterns relative to (that's relative to) other > patterns, where patterns have no independent existence. No hidden variables, > only Quality. > > > Marsha > > > > > On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:17 PM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> >> Marsha, >> >> On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:10 PM, 118 wrote: >> >>> >>> Mark: >>> This is fun. >> >> Marsha: >> I suspect a mild form of insanity. >> >> >>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 9:44 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:05 PM, 118 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> >>>>> Mark: >>>>> Well I guess this begs the question "where is the real?". >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> You brought the words "real thing" into the conversation. When I wrote >>>> "There is no real thing.", I could be considering that you meant the word >>>> "thing" in an independent, objective sense, or I could be questioning your >>>> use of "real" as in an Absolute sense, or both. Or maybe I should have >>>> disregarded your post,,, again. >>> >>> Mark: >>> I suppose I should ask you "independent" from what? We use the word >>> "objective" to imply detached. I will agree that we are not detached, and >>> that the word can be dropped if you want. It is often used rhetorically to >>> provide a meaningful split between the "subjective" and the "objective". >>> Is this split meaningless to you? If so, I can avoid using it. However, >>> if we start to simplify language, the color it brings turns to shades of >>> grey. >> >> Marsha: >> I have no idea what you are talking about. >> >> >>>>> Mark: >>>>> Words are symbols, but perhaps what words convey outside the symbology is >>>>> real. >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Haven't the slightest idea what this means. >>> >>> Mark: >>> OK, then let me ask the following thought question: What are words used >>> for? This may give a better idea. >> >> Marsha: >> I do not know for certain. What do you think? >> >> >>>>> Mark: >>>>> If one lives in an unreal world, one is always searching. >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> I live in a provisional, static world interacting with DQ to a varying >>>> degree. I am sorry you are "always searching." >>>> >>> IMark: >>> f your world is provisional, what is it provisional to? >> >> Marsha: >> I should have said I live in a conventional, static world. >> >> >>>>> Mark: >>>>> Such searching is also considered unreal, and meaningfulness is lost. >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> What are you searching for? >>> >>> Mark: >>> Many things, but the right here right now is real to me. I see no reason >>> to hide it as if there were something more. It would seem that you operate >>> within a fake world. If a word is not real, then what is it? If >>> provisionality is not real, then where do you find yourself? >> >> Marsha: >> I meant provincial or conventional world. What _seems to you_ about me is >> your problem because I cannot related to anything you've written. >> >> >>>>> Mark: >>>>> What has meaning to you? >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> It's all Value(Dynamic/static). >>> >>> Mark: >>> Is Value Real to you, or is there something contingent to Value or Quality? >> >> Marsha: >> I might repeat the positive tetralemma that Jay Garland put together: >> >> Everything is _conventionally_ real. >> Nothing is _Ultimately_ real. >> Everything is both _conventionally_ real and _Ultimately_ unreal. >> Nothing is either _conventionally_ unreal or _Ultimately_ real. >> >> >>>>> Mark: >>>>> Is there something behind the facade? >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> What facade? >>> >>> Mark: >>> When you say unreal it seems to imply a facade. Is there then no facade? >> >> Marsha: >> You brought in the word 'unreal'. Do you mean Ultimately unreal? Do you >> know what you mean??? >> >> >> You've ignored my questions. I've had enough. This is too boring. >> >> >> Byeeee. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 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
