Jonathan, Roger, all
Q- or not Q- ?
Ok Jonathan, you are right, it's maybe defeatist. But you will recognize
it's not my invention: I've found it ready made on this forum. Anyway,
instead of q-morality we will say simply morality, meaning "the morality
according to the MOQ", which is to be intended a concept of morality
more inclusive than the (classic?), (somish?) morality.
[we also could write s-morality, so SOM will be defeatist :-) ]
Roger, you shocked me with your very defeatist words...
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.
Roger you say that I contradict the basic principles of the MOQ, the
SOM, the Quantum Physics, the classic Physics and ... nothing else? Oh
yes, common sense, of course. I did not know I was so revolutionary.
Better than the Brujo, indeed.
Just kidding. You're probably right: saying that atoms are
autonomous... not a good term indeed. I think I'm contradicting
complementarity, so I apologize. I was just trying to say that the laws
we create can't decide (cause) what the atom is, or how it behaves...
but even if I delete autonomy, the problem of awareness is not still
solved. I will retire to think... se you later.
Marco
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
