Hi Case
I answered some of this in my last post, but I'll continue here.
> [Case]
> But if you are just going to assign values to various characteristics how
> does graphing it tell you more than a simple list of characteristics? Also
> there are lots of taxonomic systems that don't pretend to be anything more
> than useful ways to organize things. The MoQ is claiming that its levels
> have metaphysical significance.
Actually, graphing *doesn't* tell us (much) more than a simple list of
characteristics. But I think it helps emphasizing that a *thing* has more than
one type of value. Many people, and I thought you were one of them but perhaps
I
was wrong, think that all SOM *things* must be placed somewhere along one long
axis with all the levels laid out after each other. Such an arrangement doesn't
help at all, but only causes the endless quarrels about where the *thing*
belongs.
However, if you clearly state that each level has its own axis *and* that it's
possible for a thing to have more than one type of value, an orthogonal
arrangement doesn't add much info. What it does is to show the connection
between a SOM *thing* and its MoQ values in a different - and for some, easier
-
way.
> [Case]
> Most classifications systems are admittedly arbitrary and the rules change
> to match new data. Pluto just got demoted from being a planet to being a
> planetoid. When the platypus was discovered a new category was created in
> biology. Taxonomists usually expect this. A more rigorous and powerful
> taxonomy was the Periodic table which actually predicted that new elements
> would be found to fill in the holes in the table. Particle physicists used a
> similar table to predict the existence of new particles.
Yes, that's a wet dream of mine. :) That the MoQ levels can be formalized
enough
to be used to predict new laws of nature. For example, nobody seems to really
know what gravity is. But I have a nagging feeling that the reason nobody knows
is that they are all stuck in the SOM system of thought.
Any physicists here? Ron? Your comments about geometry hinted at a scientific
vein, perhaps physics as well?
> [Case]
> I agree whole heartedly. In fact it seems to me the chief value of the MoQ
> arises not simply from that first cut into static and dynamic but from the
> fact the both are quantifiable; they have value. But some seem to have
> problems with trying to quantify DQ in any way shape or form.
Hmm, as I said in my previous post, I'm not very eager to put numbers on value.
Scientists do that, but those numbers always have a normalized reference point.
For example, length is *valued* in meters, which in turn comes from the
diameter
of the earth. Weight is valued in Kg (not sure where the normalized 1Kg comes
from though).
And perhaps it could be possible to put similar numbers on DQ by somehow
measuring how much something has changed from the last time we observed it.
*But* if we do that, we have at the same time limited DQ. We put boundaries to
how DQ is *allowed* to change things, or rather, we incorporate some level of
change in our system. But in doing that, we have actually just made a bigger
static system.
And then the real DQ comes from behind and surprises us by changing the system
into something we hadn't expected. That's DQ.
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/
