To: The PRO's
From: Roger the CON
MARCO:
IMO there is not a substantial disagreement
about the behavior of electrons: it is just a disagreement about the
term. Of course, I'm with Jonathan and I also think that if the MOQ
pretends to be a successful philosophy, we have to suggest/accept
modifications on language. Actually, the Q- suffix used on this forum
to distinguish the MOQ terms by the common terms is a good solution. So
Q-morality is not morality, Q-society is not society, and so on. That's
why I've been talking of Q-awareness.
ROG:
Aha! So atoms are Q-aware! Why didn't you say so? In that case I will
change my objection to "That is Q-absurd."
I think it is better to keep to conventional words where they work. But it
is a mild objection. More of a Q-objection, come to think of it.
MARCO:
And the electron? Can we say it's "Aware"? Could be. Actually, when we
isolate it for an experiment, it demonstates that when it's alone it's
also able to choose its acts with no need for instructions. I tried to
show that "aware" could be considered something less than "conscious",
so I think that we could use the term. Anyway, if still "aware" is too
strong, I suggest "AUTONOMOUS". A good term to mean it's self equipped
to face reality: independent of the laws we invent for it (like Forces,
Causation... ) as the "real law" is inside the electron. "Autonomous"
seems less embarrassing than "aware" or "conscious", and IMO better than
"prehensible". And more, smells also of freedom. Free to choose.
ROG:
Well, I take back what I said about guessing we were in basic agreement here.
Though I respect your views, I could disagree with virtually every sentence
above from a minimum of 5 or 6 vantage points. In one paragraph you were able
to contradict a many of the basic principles in the MOQ, quantum AND
classical physics, SOM, and common sense. That is a hat-trick that I would
not have thought possible (because they already contradict each other in
various ways -- I never thought you guys could invent a whole new ontology
that repudiates the whole bunch). I had no idea we were so far apart. I
cannot even begin to respond other than to comment that if this is what you
and Platt and Jonathan subscribe to then at least we can't accuse you of
being overly metaphorical in your language. I am sorry I ever questioned your
beliefs.
I concede that TO YOU GUYS, atoms are aware. (feel free to bail any time,
Jonathan)
Rog
PS -- Conversations that I overheard at the subatomic bar today. In no
'particler' order:
"Hey, check out the gluons on that quark! Is she a 'looker' or what? That is
what I call 'charm'!"
"Yeah, I really respect Bobby Electron. He's an electron's electron. A
totally autonomous dude."
"Oh, did you hear about little Freddy? It was terrible. The uncertainty
principle struck him down before he even got a chance to be aware."
" You talkin to me? Are you talkin' to me? I ain't no stinkin' seamless web
of relationships! I ain't no stinkin' wave/particle duality!"
"I'm bored. What says we take this party to my nucleuses' house and create
some carbon? Or if ya wanna get real funky, we can go all the way and 'do' a
chemistry professor."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
