Hi Joe,

OK, we can disagree on this.  I find that if I treat mathematics and
all sciences as metaphysics things are much clearer for me.
Personally I do not see much difference between a composition made
from notes, and one made from variables.  At its fringes, new math is
being created all the time, math that never existed before.  So if
this is defined, then we are always creating new definitions, the same
is true for a language based metaphysics or an empirical metaphysics.
They are all things that we create, none of them are presentations of
what is.

Definitions are used so that we can all communicate on the same page.
That is all they are.  Like I have stated previously any definition of
a "dog" is insufficient since such a definition would have to include
aspects of sight, sound, smell, touch, taste,  conjectures, history,
personal memories, the memories of others, unexpected findings (such
as the Black Swan), and the day to day progress of defining a dog.  As
you can see, the definition of a dog is never done.  So we resort to a
very very simple definition of a dog so that we do not waste time on
trying to explain what we mean by "dog".

Having said that, the definition is not the dog, just like a map is
not the country.  Just because we can define something does not mean
that such a thing is suddenly static.  This could never happen.  As a
concept is transferred from person to person it always changes and is
interpreted in dynamically new ways.  The concept is not static, the
presentation of the concept is.  If we thought we lived in a static
world it would be sad indeed.  In fact the world would not seem as it
does.

These words on the page are static, but what is putting them down is
far from static.  MoQers should give themselves a break and stop
boxing themselves in with words.  Use the words, don't let them use
you!

Cheers,
Mark

On 2/9/12, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau@comc...> wrote:
> Hi Mark and All,
>
> I disagree that math is a form of metaphysics!  Music and poetry are forms
> of metaphysics in allowing a freedom for definition.  I feel that math is
> restricted to defined disciplines unlike reality which created levels in
> existence!  Math is limited/unlimited, neither fish nor fowl unlike
> evolution which has restraints.
>
> Evolution!  Imho the musical scale Do, Re, MI_FA, Sol, La, Ti_ and Do etc.
> repeating on a higher level is a model for evolution.  Reality in evolution
> has restraints.  There is no infinite Evolution!  It can be described as
> discrete levels in existence.
>
> Definitions cannot be the arbiter of reality since definitions in a mind
> follow reality.  IMHO Evolution is a discipline for conceptualizing reality.
> I am unclear why the reality of evolution seems to be so abhorrent to
> religion.  DQ/SQ
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
> On 2/8/12 4:02 PM, "118" <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>
>> As I have said before, I see math as one form of metaphysics.  Some
>> people like to use words, others like to use equations.  But in the
>> end, it is a description (and explanation, if you will) of "what is".
>> There is not fundamental difference between math and language except
>> perhaps in the definitions themselves.
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html