LS Re: Explain the Static Dynamic split


Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:51:35 +0100


Hi Jonathan and Squad

You wrote:
> All DESCRIPTION is in the intellectual level. Description is an
> intellectual process. Amoebae don't describe things (in the normal
> sense) because they don't have the intellectual capacity.
>
But they're nonetheless real. And a metaphysical framework should
make room for all real things, not just their intellectual shadows.

> >To be a little more specific, I usually look at the Quality Event as
> >two static patterns affecting each other. Each being the subject from
> >its point of view and the other being the object.
> But that's already all SQ. The static patterns and the interaction
> mechanism are all part of the description of what happens.
>
Hmm... Do I understand you correctly if that means that "the law
of gravity" is an intellectual description, SQ. Actual gravity,
on the other hand, would be DQ?

I would argue that "gravity" is inorganic SPoV, whereas "the law of
gravity" is intellectual SPoV.

> >The dynamic part of
> >the Quality Event is the ever present uncertainty in each and every
> QE.
> >For inorganic Quality Events, DQ is called the Heisenberg uncertainty
> >principle. I bet you could find similar principles for the other
> levels
> >too.
>
> That's SQ too (the Heisenberg uncertainty principal) - probably that
> is;-).
>
It's the same difference here too, or as a semi-Swahili friend would
put it, "same, same, but different." :)
We're talking about two different things. You're talking about the
intellectual description of HUP, intellectual SPoV. I'm talking about
the HUP, the dynamic part of inorganic quality events.

> Observation includes some sort of "registration" of the event -
> already
> pattern. Without the registration - the leaving of evidence - the
> "happening" might as well not have happened. It is not part of our
> (description of) reality.
>
You said the other week that the question whether a tree that falls
in the forest without anybody hearing it actually falls, was pure
semantics. (BTW, I've seen you use that word a few times. No pun
intended but sometimes it sounds like an easy way out. I'd value
a more elaborate description of possible interpretations, and why
one is more valid than others. Just to avoid misunderstandings.)

Anyway, if there's no observer to hear the tree, the tree might
as well not have fallen you mean? And since there was no observer
on prehistoric earth, it might as well not have existed. And since
there were nobody present at the big bang, it might as well not
have happened. There's a bootstrapping problem here somewhere.
Our existence requires these events to precede us, and these
events require our existence to precede them.

One more thing, you used parentheses around "description of" in
the sentence "It is not part of our (description of) reality.".
Why? It looks like you don't acknowledge the difference between
reality and the intellectual description of it. Don't you buy the
difference between "gravity" and "the law of gravity"?

        Magnus

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST