ROGER SIGNS OFF THIS DISCUSSION TO FOCUS ON MARCO'S STUFF
RICK:
Yes... good ideas should hang together. But it's more tricky in this case.
Does the MoQ actually "compliment" the theories you name??? I'm not sure,
actually I think it merely contains them. You recognize the validity of
physics, the MoQ contains physics, so you agree with the MoQ. You recognize
the validity of Math, the MoQ contains Math, so you agree with the MoQ...
etc. The problem is that the MoQ is a description that contains other
descriptions and sometimes it's hard to seperate the substance of the MoQ
itself from that which it contains. In fact, the MoQ actually contains all
theories as Intellectual patterns... so no matter what you believe in, the
MoQ could be said, in a sense, to "compliment" those beliefs.
Roger:
Are you just being argumentative? I think I could go on with examples of how
the MOQ provides clarity and consistency on each of these issues, but I am
not sure it will add value. You have already agreed with me in one post that
the map isn't the terrain and should be measured on its mapping quality (and
you tentatively agree with its quality), yet you are still arguing with Dan
(in another post) whether quality =reality.
TTFN
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
