Hi People
Roger. Apologies for not coming back in on this one . I'm finishing another essay at
the
moment and it's a bit more involved than I thought it would be. As soon as I've
knocked it
out I'll get back into this thread. In the meantime ....
Q1) Define DQ as succinctly as possible
I'm happy with any of the following as they essentially say the same thing:
1) Change (Horse)
2) Potential (Jonathan)
3) How things become (Magnus)
Ialso agree with much of what David B. says and what I have said myself in the past.
DQ is
essentially unknowable as knowing is a static value.
I'm also drifting back to my earlier suggestion that DQ has more than a single aspect
- but
as it's essentially unnknowable we have to look for those aspects in the clues it
leaves
behind
Q2) Define the QE, in terms of your preceding definition if possible
A collision of Static Value(s)
Q3) Define sq, in terms of the above two def's if possible
What's left after DQ has done its stuff.
Q4) Explain how the levels emerge in the above terms
An iterative process (fueled by DQ?) of increasing complexity and interaction between
all
levels.
Q5) Explain what "all is evolving toward" in your preceding terms
I agree with Magnus. As far as I can see to provide a teleogical explanation is to
posit
some form of guiding intelligence (or similar). The best or most appropriate static
value
latches by a process of survival of the most appropriate. There is no goal - there is
only
what may be.
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
