[Jos] Applying ususal MOQ zealotry to the rounding problem I think you produce another kind of maths thats no bloody use to anyone. To be accurate you have to show some factor that allows the two sides to be equated precisely by assigning relative values to the different units as well as an element that specifies quantity.
[Ron] Topos does this. I was just pointing out the flaw in conventional math and in conventional thinking by my examples. Please excuse the zealotry but it was very difficult to explain and no one really thinks it's a big deal. But in pointing out the problem, a workable theory of quantum physics which relates to the MOQ was found. I feel it also relates to how we percieve also. Why we see perfect form and value particular patterns more than others. And why MOQ may change this. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Kulp Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? [Jos] Do you consider interger units to be representative values or quantities? Like you imply, with quantities you have to assume that your comparing apples with apples, but with values the units could relate to anything. Applying ususal MOQ zealotry to the rounding problem I think you produce another kind of maths thats no bloody use to anyone. To be accurate you have to show some factor that allows the two sides to be equated precisely by assigning relative values to the different units as well as an element that specifies quantity. So instead of saying 1+1=2 you have to say a1+b1=c(a1+b1) where: a = unrealised absolute value of apples, b = unrealised absoute value of bananas c = absolute comparative value between apples and bananas. The observer assigns their own assumed values to the absolutes and everyone gets a different answer. In fact the more I think about it all I'm doing is translating language into a less comprehensible numerical system of expression. Its like you cant "solve" the equation at all, because to to be accurate every term you introduce has another unknowable (oxymoronic) dynamic "constant" applied to it and to its absolute relationship to the other terms. If you compare static patterns of different levels I think it gets even worse as, as the terms are all derivatives of each other. [Ron] That is why this Topos theory is so exciting, it is taking this into account by using a topology of micro sets as a dynamic value.. A measurement system which changes as the phenomena it is measuring Changes. It still is'nt "cathing the rainbow" but it puts it damn near right in your lap. It in effect is the closest method of obtaining a static pattern of dynamic quality yet. Comparable to to Pirsigs term "Quality". It's exciting because it is one more argument for the accuracy of MOQ. 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/ 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/
