Re: virus: MS Weapon

Brett Lane Robertson (
Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:52:53 -0500

> Rate of change implies that there are different rates. For instance,
>the rate of change as water goes to ice in a cup, is detectable by our
>senses. It happens in an abount of time we can easily measure and
>understand. The symbolism is the nearly identicle for all of us. On the
>other hard, the rate of expansion of Universe is not detectable easily.
>If it were, so many people would have the symbols necessary to concieve
>of a finite universe that is expanding, that false ideas and symbols
>would fall into dis-use as inherently false. I hate to use religion
>again, but it is an excellent example. Because people thought the stars
>were placed by god to guide us upon the seas, and to read signs and
>omens, incorrect and damaging symbolsm gained a foothold that cannot
>easily be shaken. Had the bible said that stars are balls of hydrogen,
>helium and several other elements in fusion and held together by gravity
>and seperated by vast distances of nearly infinate space, religion
>would be very different today. A rate of change, or the apearance of a
>constant rate of change, make common symbolism possible. We both
>understand that a map works because we use nearly identicle or similar
>symbolism. A map of the universe could never be made because the
>universe cannot be even close to static in a way that we coould store
>the information.

>I hope i did this justice in under 500 lines, but I am sure that there
>is much room in this discussion for more ideas.

>Ask not for whom the flourescent lights hum


So, recognizing change in a mental state leads to understanding...a more
constant change would lead to a more uniform are talking
"uncertainty" by saying that we need the constant to recognize the change
and the change to recognize a constant. Within the set of constants and
changes a pattern (on a map for example) could be considered a constant;
therefore, we would need a change to understand this pattern...and the more
consistent change would lead to a better understanding. Assuming that two
people who are looking at a map are beginning with the same constant--that
is a pattern which is basically fixed into a "state" (am I using this word
right, I'm not sure I see the difference between state and pattern...are you
saying that the arbetrary nature of a pattern on a map is not the same as
the more natural constant observed in the form of a consistent change? And
if so, I'm not sure I would seem that the way we recognize the
pattern on the map is because it is a "state"ed form of the same change
which generates recognition...anyway)...assuming that symbols on a map are
held constant the degree of recognition would have to be related to the
consistency of the change from the pattern, to the state, to the area where
all things are relative.

So, I would argue that even a pattern is a state, and that we need the area
of relativity to understand stateness (and in turn, patterns). Though I can
imagine that if the universe external to consciousness (objective) was NOT
random (in the sense of changing at a state which is relative from all
perspectives) then objects would directly tell us of their exact nature due
to our's and their constant rate of change from a recognizable state or
pattern. Nontheless, we must have an original pattern or state to contrast
this change from.

If the pattern is arbetrary (like the drawings on a map...well, relatively
arbetrary), then it is not the consistency of the pattern which generates
understanding--nor the consistent change between states--but the evolution
of the pattern itself. Translated, this implies that the changes noticed
between one map and a second map give us the mental tool to judge the
consistency between map and terrain. Because I like to view the universe
as relative, I place consistency in consciousness...and therefore attribute
understanding to individual intelligently ordered change
from one pattern to a--hopefully--more recognizable pattern (the differences
between these two patterns providing the information needed to intelligently
develop a next pattern which is even more recognizable).


Rabble Sonnet Retort
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
but in ourselves.

William Shakespeare