Hi again
> On 29 Mar.you cried:
>
>> No No No No No!! Static inorganic patterns have EVERYTHING to do
>> with physics and cosmology! You're doing it again. You totally
>> confuse "reality" with "pointing at reality".
>
> The sciences are intellectual pattern - that much we agree on -
> then then the world that the physicists examine must be treated
> as if it was intellect's "matter" because there exists no "inorganic
> value patterns" to science. Trying to impose a Q-physics is plain
> impossible.
Of course not, you only think it's impossible because of your SOLAQI. Forget
that and all will be fine. Of course I realize that you won't do that at a
whim,
but that's what's stopping you from believing that many scientists have already
made at least half of the journey to the MoQ.
> I've read that it's possible to calculate a moon trip by
> General Relativity - if you have a thousand years and a bank of
> supercomputers at your disposal - but this job is infinitely easier
> done with Newton's physics. However, inside black holes and at
> speeds close to light GR must be applied. The MOQ is for the
> extreme (final) questions. "Leave unto Intellect what Intellect's is
> and unto the MOQ ...etc".
Not sure GR has anything to say about the inside of black holes? You'd probably
need QM for that.
But your Newton vs. GR is interesting. Do you mean that since Newton's system
is
a subset of GR, is it also a subset of the intellectual level? Perhaps level
3.5?
Sorry about the irony, but from my perspective it seems as if you think that
every big leap in the understanding of our world entails a new level. But that
just doesn't work in the long run, it ridicules the MoQ.
>> I can of course observe the ball falling and then think about how
>> fast the ball should fall etc. In this case, it's me thinking about
>> physical models and how they stipulate how the ball should move, and
>> those models are intellectual patterns. But intellectual patterns
>> describe things and WHAT THOSE PATTERNS DESCRIBE ARE INORGANIC
>> PATTERNS!
>
> These are physical phenomena to physics, and I can't for the life
> of me understand what speaking about value patterns - in this
> setting - adds to our understanding of ball trajectories.
It adds the word "value", or rather substitues "causes" with "values". Pirsig
writes in Lila: "Instead of saying 'A magnet causes iron filings to move toward
it,' you can say 'Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.'".
A modern scientist would probably welcome that change. Quantum physics rather
proves it and it's not at all impossible for a SOM scientist to start thinking
in ways that in many ways resembles the MoQ. In fact, many, if not all Quantum
physicists, already do.
> BTW What
> pattern is it that observes the inorganic patterns "valuing to fall"?
Not sure I understood that question, but "valuing to fall" sounds like gravity
to me.
>> But ok, as long as you keep these doubts for yourself, I'm ok with
>> it. Just don't come interfere with us who want to use the MoQ for
>> those purposes.
>
> Doubts? Not at all, I see the MOQ opening up a new world,
> devoid of SOM's paradoxes, but this it does only by the
> intellect=S/O interpretation (both subject and object confined to
> intellect) but the MD has become a competition of closing minds
> to the obvious. However, I'm grateful for your effort to debunk it,
> it's more honest than the ignoring tactics.
But if you see the MoQ opening up a new world, why don't you do that? I've been
trying to do that for a long time but every time I try (in the lower end of the
levels), you start your very contra-productive arguments about "not abusing the
MoQ" or "it's impossible because of SOLAQI" or something else. That's not very
productive, it might even have closed some of the minds here.
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/
