Re: LS Peels

From: Magnus Berg (McMagnus@hem2.passagen.se)
Date: Sun May 23 1999 - 11:03:13 BST


Hi Rich

You wrote:
> Dynamic Quality IS the Subject
> static Quality are THE objects

This really got my attention. If this was the case, it would mean
that the MoQ is the same as SOM, right? The most fundamental MoQ
terms would be the same as the most fundamental SOM terms. What
would be the point in Lila, the MoQ or the Lila Squad?

Many people are trying to make DQ into "something", but since
everyone are seeing DQ a little bit differently, they all come up
with different "somethings". We must not try to describe DQ as
"something", not ANYthing. My version is to describe DQ as the
becoming of something, or the changing of something into something
else.

Let me describe why I think this is a good version.

Today, the physicists have a fairly good model of the physical
reality and the workings of the universe. They use three spatial
and one temporal dimension to describe this model.

Given one state of this universe, they can predict the future
using this model with a rather high certainty. The uncertainty
partly comes from the yet uncompleted model, but probably also
directly from DQ.

What would happen if they completed the model? I mean *really*
completed it. Would the future be completely predictable without
room for so called free will?

First of all, I don't think it's possible to really complete
the model, I think DQ will always be there to disrupt predictions.

But even if this weren't the case, DQ would still have the last
laugh. The physicists are only dealing with the four dimensions.
(Or eleven when dealing with super strings I believe, but never mind)
They treat the dimensions as if they were completely static.
But it is DQ that created those "static" dimensions in the first place,
it might just as well change the dimensions from below.

        Magnus

MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:44 GMT