Hi Marsha, On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:02 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:41 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Hello Marsha, >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Greetings Mark, >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:51 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Mark: >>>> What I was trying to say about quantum mechanics is that it is a >>>> mathematical description of matter. The notion that matter is >>>> non-local arises from how the math is used. Therefore non-locality is >>>> not a result of matter actually being non-local, it is a result of the >>>> math used to describe it. The problem with physicists (imo) is that >>>> they think that the math equations actually ARE matter. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Patterns are ever-changing, conditionally codependent, impermanent and >>> conceptually constructed, whether intellectual, social, biological or >>> inorganic. Within the quantum world, there is the measurement problem. And >>> hope for interconnectedness. >> >> [Mark] >> As you know, I have a problem with "patterns" since it seem to rigid >> for me. In my opinion, patterns arise after conceptualization. This >> would draw a line between DQ and conceptualization, which I do not >> believe is quite accurate. But, that is just me. >> > > Marsha: > Here is my understanding of patterns. Please note, though I state > that all patterns are conceptualized, that does not mean that patterns > are conceptual (all concepts). For I do not. Patterns may very well, > at the very least, have a perceptual piece. Here it is again: > > I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different > points of view. One would be the nature of all patterns: conditionally > co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. > A second would be by categorization by evolutionary function - > inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their four-level, > hierarchical structure. > Yes, I think I see what you are presenting. I would use a systems approach rather than a pattern approach to convey what I believe you are saying. A system is dynamic, a pattern seems more static to me.
Personally, I approach MoQ more from the inside looking out, than the outside looking in. That is, I do not see myself as a pattern, although I can create them. We are not actually devided up into four levels, nor do we need to abide by conditionality. Again, all just my opinion. Cheers, Mark > > ___ > > > 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
