Hi all foci,
Just a few comments:
- When you talk about entropy as going 'from order to chaos' you are
depending on the idea of 'order vs. chaos', can't this be a misleading
SOM-term (like 'mind vs. matter', 'object vs. subject' etc.) ? As someone
pointed out regarding information, there are some difficulties defining
order and chaos (and thus defining entropy) - but thats far away of the
topic, or isn't it ?
- When using the entropy-idea for thing like communication and information -
i.e. not-fysical things - you apply a law of fysics, a law of the inorganic
level to regard higher levels, you force a static law on a more dynamic
level: this is a typical SOM strategy, it can be interesting but I prefer
the definition of a more general or a different law for higher levels ( like
the statement about morals).
- Why look at time only as a fysical entity ? As MOQ trys to break down the
wall between object and subject, why not look at time as a function of a
higher level, a part of the 'mind' category ? About time in the fysical
sense there is written more then we can read this month all together.
Time :
- Relativity learns that the concepts of time and space are strongly
related, and that in any other system of reference they can be quite
different (relative to ....) . Idealists like Locke regard the concepts of
space and time as complex ideas in the category 'relations' , thus as
something humans use to relate events and perceptions in a understandable
way. Others have suggested that 'space&time' is a innate/inborn idea for it
is used 'a priori' (can you nurture a child in a way that it doesn't have a
concept of 'space&time' ?); it is suggested here that 'space&time' is a
pattern of the organic level, something nessecary for organisms to function,
is this possible in the MOQ or is there a systematic argument against it ?
- I think that the concept of time (and space) is interwined with the
concept of order, for time is one of the first, primary and most powerfull
ways to order events (as space is for objects), without the concept of time
the dynamical world would be a chaos of events that "travel through *time*
like it was up, left, or forward". Further, as stated by Magnus, at the
quantum level of fysics time seems to have hardly any meaning, this can also
be an indication that time first appears in the evolution towards the
organic level.
- An other question is whether you need time in order to have Dynamics - you
need time in order to have (fysical) movement, but is DQ thinkable "outside"
time ? If it isn't is it permitted at all to think of time as a stattic
pattern, or are we then forced to regard time as the very manifestation DQ ?
The problem here is that Dynamical influences can only appear through time,
and static patterns are also only stable through time (how can a system be
stable "outside" time; without time there is no movement, has the word
"stable" or "static" any meaning there ?). An other possebility is that our
human minds are simply unable to think "outside" the innate/inborn idea of
time, then we are to conclude that "time" is one of the limits of the human
mind.
Greetings,
Jaap
-------------------------------------
"... for we do not only have to criticise the method, we also have to
criticise the facts, and we even have to criticize the critics."
-------------------------------------
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST