LS New levels Was: Mountain quality>Atom quality???


Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Fri, 29 Aug 1997 03:32:59 +0100


>To finish of I have a spontanious thought that popped into my mind:
>If the dynamic quality is filled with to many levels,do we not lose
>the flexibillity and power. E.G. If a quantum level is added, then
>it sounds to me that it is just sucking up to modern science.
>Is The quantum theory not only a theory (that is valid TODAY) which
>explains matter.
>
...sucking up... :-)

Yeah, I'm also a little skeptic about adding new levels,
static levels that is, not dynamic, but I guess that was
a typo. That got me thinking about what it takes to
define a new level. What makes two static levels different?
If this can be defined, you could match the new level against
the others and see if it really *is* a new, different level.

Here's an attempt at this. Feel free to argue. Who am I to
stop you guys anyway? :-)

I'd say that the answer is in Lila, where else? Pirsig states
that any static level above another is more moral than the other.
So, take set A containing patterns belonging to the new level,
and a reference set B containing patterns belonging to a known
level. Then, if all patterns in set A is more (less) moral
than all patterns in set B, this would mean that the new level
is above (below) the known level. Repeat this with reference
sets from all known levels and you could place the new level
in the correct place.

Apply this to quantum physics and I'd say that inorganic
patterns are more moral than quantum fluctuations.

In the beginning there was chaos... ;-)

> Magnus
>

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:26 CEST