Hi Akshay
Akshay Peshwe wrote:
> 1. We are not only "inside" reality and can't see it from the "outside"
> (whatever that is), but we are also "inside" our own intellect and therefore
> we can never come up with a complete self-map (as in a map of our
> intellect). Refer to Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Godel Escher
> Bach by Douglas R Hofstadter for more.
The MoQ is not trying to map the entire reality as a map does. It's not as if
the MoQ is a map of the universe with galaxy clusters as it's predominant
features. The MoQ is a map for the constituents, ontology, of our reality.
Therefore, the self-map incompleteness theorem doesn't apply to a metaphysics.
> 2. About the map-of-reality vs reality dichotomy itself: I see no way to
> actually come up with this distinction. There is a thin thread
> of subject-object metaphysics going through this here. The only way we know
> reality is by the map. Hence the "reality" is only a deduced entity.
According to the MoQ (at least my understanding of it), a map is an
intellectual
pattern describing another pattern (of any level). The described pattern is the
"reality", but may of course also be an intellectual pattern, in which case
it's
a map of a map ...
If you think of reality as a deduced entity, you're getting close to idealism,
and have already left the MoQ behind.
> 3. Is the MoQ still open to change? I think that there might be a level of
> evolution (or more than one) beyond the intellectual level before
> approaching pure Dynamic Quality. Maybe spiritual? What if one can get into
> an enlightened level and latch on? Is that even possible?
My personal belief is that no metaphysics can really evolve once it's started.
That doesn't mean there can be no more levels though, it just means that we
haven't yet recognized them and incorporated them into our level description.
> 4. I think science (as it is known today) is only a *type* of intellectual
> patterns. What about ghost stories? They are still explanations about
> reality, and hence intellectual patterns. I suppose you could say anything
> that fits into a formal system (refer to Godel Escher Bach again) can be
> called intellectual patterns.
I'm all there.
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/
