Ian, Ron and Case
ian glendinning wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
>
> I hadn't though of taking the orthogonality metaphor that far. Some
> rules of inter-dependency, yes, to capture the fact that they are not
> independent, but I'm not sure the geometrical sense of orthogonality
> (and skewing axes) helps ?
>
> In the previous exchange you had set my mind thinking about the
> patterns (SPOV's) as distribution functions in the space we'd just
> defined .... but the "values" on our axes are of course qualitative
> and complex so I'm not sure there is much milage in pushing the idea.
> Combining qualitative properties like colour with this set of axes put
> me in mind of Wilbur's spiral model. But I'm just drivelling out loud
> ... sorry.
I agree. I had more or less come to that conclusion as well, but I was waiting
for other's opinions in case someone could open up the case again.
Case wanted to assign real numbers to the axis in the graph, but as Ian said,
there's no way to do that, because betterness within a level is context
sensitive as the example about the protein was meant to show. A protein has
biological value for most/all carbon based life forms, but doesn't have any
biological value for sulfur based life forms at the bottom of the Atlantic
ocean.
This context sensitivity is not something to appalled by, you can't use it to
disprove the MoQ. It just shows that a SOM *thing* is not the best way to see
the world. It's the SOM *thing* that causes the context sensitivity, not the
MoQ.
I have some more about Case's questions, but I'll answer those in the next post.
Magnus
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
