Hi Joe, If math were only a method using simple equations to calculate, I would agree with you. However, when one gets into theoretical math, way out on the edges, the mathematician is dealing with concepts that have no attachment to the senses. That is, these abstract concepts have no empirical tie. This is where our usage of the intellectual level resides, the abstract manipulation of concepts. Your ideas of evolution appears to lie in the same plain. That is, empirical certainty does not exist in your appreciation of evolution, it is outside empiricism. Godel was a mathematician, who also presented metaphysics. He was never fully appreciated in his time (and still isn't), but the way in which he created his "Godel Universes", and the metaphysical results from such universes were astonishing. There are also other mathematical philosophers who use math to create things as astonishing as MoQ.
Now, I am sure that dmb would disagree with me about this, but the intellectual level is on par with "pure reason". Unfortunately, our modern philosophy is dominated by Kant, and the subsequent positivists, who try to ground everything into a simple experience-based reality, or materialism. While I suppose that our "pure reason" is an experience, it is separated from our 5 senses. Pirsig is against such grounding, and speaks of spiritual rationality. While the epistemology of such rationality has yet to be worked out, it will certainly include philosophical ideas which reside outside empiricism; it has to since the spirit is not empirical. It is interesting that W. James was a fan of the paranormal, and also believed that certain psychotropic drugs could impart mystical feelings, so sometimes I wonder how empirical he was. Huxley followed along the same path as did many more, but I digress. I agree with your conceptualization of Evolution as an active verb. I also believe that harmonics are very fundamental to reality. There are so many examples of this, just in everyday living. The earth going around the sun is a harmonic, and if we linearize the motion by incorporating time, it is a wave-form which oscillates perfectly. That is, it exists at its fundamental frequency. We are, by association, part of that harmonic. Like I said, I appreciate your use of music in describing reality. Cheers, Mark On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark and all, > > In describing disciplines of thought, I find mathematical logic too > restrictive for metaphysical reality. When proposing an evolutionary logic, > the certainty for everything seems to get lost. What form can describe > evolution so that necessary distinctions are acceptable? > > I would conceptualize your statement: "Evolution is the way things exist" to > "Evolution describes levels in existence." How many levels? As a model I > like an analogy to the 7 toned octave in sound in its varying level modality > (whole tones and half tones) describing sound intensity as the model for > evolution. > > Joe > > > On 12/7/11 7:10 AM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Until a better model comes around evolution is the way things exist. My >> main >> thrust was to question what does this theory do for us. > > > 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
