From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 21:48:36 GMT
Gert-Jan,
Gert, you say 'First there is quality, then there are subjects and objects.'
Ok, it sounds a bit like Christian theology; first there was the Word, then
the Word was made into flesh.
I am embarrassed by my obtuseness, but I am too ingrained into thinking that
first there are objects and then there are observers of the objects and
finally there is thinking about the whole process.
I just can't (yet) understand this quality business. Oh well, I'll keep
trying.
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gert-Jan Peeters" <gjpeeters@home.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: MD string theory
> Nathan said on 9 nov:
>
> Hmm, So, if there is no one in the forest, then the tree makes no sound as
> it falls, right?
>
>
> Gert-Jan says on 9 nov:
>
> Indeed, if consciousness has seized to be, there are no forests with
falling
> trees. There is not even a 'you' that is seperated from 'the rest'. First
> there is quality, then there are subjects and objects. But with
> consciousness going on outside the forest that enters the forest after the
> tree has fallen, the common thinking will tell you that there must have
been
> some noise when the tree fell. The reality you have there is an
intellectual
> pattern of value. Your reasoning provides you with the coherence you need.
>
>
>
> Nathan said on 9 nov:
>
> Did you happen to catch the latest NOVA on PBS?
>
>
>
> GJ says on 9 nov:
>
> Sorry, other country.
>
>
>
> Nathan said on 9 nov:
>
> It was about the book called The Elegant Universe. The book discusses
> 'string theory'. String theory postulates that all matter and all
radiation
> (photons, heat etc) is composed of vibrating strings of energy. That,
these
> strings, are the ultimate reality; the strings vibrate in 11 dimensions.
> Since we can't imagine 11 dimensions, is it fair to say that only 4
> dimensions exist and the strings are unreal?
>
>
>
> GJ says on 9 nov:
>
> I don't know the book, however I have heard about this string-theorie. I
> think it is an example how our thinking can stack explanations ad
infinitum;
> neverending. First we have experience. After that the image is formed. And
> as with the noise of the fallen tree we have created an image about the
> world to give us some feeling of coherence. (static patterns) Because
> experience is reality these conclusions are also reality. Pirsig calls
them
> intellectual patterns of value. Those patterns can be annything. But to
> believe that rain is formed by angels on a cloud that take a divine leek
is
> of lower quality then the 'real' reason behind the fact that it is
raining.
> Thunder and lightning can be Zeus roaring through the air throwing bolts
of
> lightning toward the earth. It can also be electrons traveling from here
to
> there. Some ideas are better then others. An idea is better when it fits
in
> the puzzle. And sometimes we take desperate measures to make it all fit to
> one another. But that's the thrill of science. And if your idea about the
> world only fits your experience until you have eleven dimensions, you
should
> go with that until something betters comes allong.
>
> Then you also ask: "Since we can't imagine 11 dimensions, is it fair to
say
> that only 4 dimensions exist and the strings are unreal?" Here my lack of
> knowledge comes into play. I don't know enough about this string-theorie
to
> bring you any further with that. If you find a giant 20 ft. footstep in
your
> backyard, and you can't imagine what created it, is it fair to say such
> footsteps don't exist and therefore the thing that ruined your garden
> doesn't exist? If the conclusion is absurd, the steps that took you there
> are absurd too. Now it seems the last part of the puzzle gets us into
> trouble because we have to do strange things with our imagination to make
it
> all fit. Creating theories about reality that take us further away from
our
> direct experience. Even away from our imagination (didn't even know that
was
> possible) If the last piece of the puzzle doesn't fit perfectly, maybe the
> surrounding pieces are wrong. What then? Then we are really exploring.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 21:50:08 GMT