[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[ian glendinning]

Dan asked of Bohr's implied lack of independent reality.
"Do you read it that way too?"

Absolutely.

It's interesting to read Bohr (and Heisenberg and Shroedinger and
Born) original work, rather than the "boys own" popular summaries of
quantum physics. Unlike Einstein, who tried to hold on to his
pre-existing realities, including his too literal god, these guys
really understood the weirdness of what they were working with.

The whole physical complementarity / nothingness spawned the Tao / Zen
/ New Physics movement, which unfortunately for my liking has gone a
bit too far towards "new-age" with Talbot and Capra. (There is a whole
"Einstein was right" movement too, of course) The core seems right
though ... nothing but quality interactions ... no independant reality
....

The line this has taken that most interests me is the "quantum
information" angle ... I wish I understood Dirac ... all complementary
pairs the yin / yangs, the A's / Not-A's being "bits", but QuBits of
uncertain value between yay and nay rather than simple binary. The
middle is suddenly included. Without difference there exists nothing.

Ian

On 8/6/06, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> >From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> >Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
> >Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 20:28:18 -0400
> >
> >
> >[Case]
> >Pirsig says: (with my small quotes inserted) "Quality comes first, which
> >produces ideas, which produce 'what we know' as matter."
> >
> >While that is true in so far as it goes, I think complementarily presumes
> >that there exists: matter 'that we don't know'. As a physicist, Bohr's
> >chief
> >concern was finding out more to say about this.
> >
> >"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature
> >is.
> >Physics concerns what we can say about nature."
> >
> >I don't think Bohr is saying that there is nothing to talk about only that
> >there is uncertainty about what to say. Whatever we say will be "about"
> >something that is independent of whatever we say about it; or whether we
> >say
> >nothing. But I don't think he is saying that nature is the product of
> >chit-chat.
>
> Hi Case
>
> I draw your attention to this:
> http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Folse2.html
>
> An excerpt:
>
> This postulate implies a renunciation as regards the causal space-time
> co-ordination of atomic processes. Indeed, our usual description of physical
> phenomena is based on the idea that the phenomena may be observed without
> disturbing them appreciably. This appears, for example, clearly in the
> theory of relativity, which has been so fruitful for the elucidation of
> classical theories. As emphasized by Einstein, every observation or
> measurement ultimately rests on the coincidence of two independent events at
> the same space-time point. Just these coincidences will not be affected by
> any differences which the space-time co-ordination of different observers
> otherwise may exhibit. Now, the quantum postulate implies that any
> observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency
> of observation not to be neglected. Accordingly, an independent reality in
> the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to
> the agencies of observation. (The Philosophy of Niels Bohr Page 110)
>
> Dan comments:
>
> I know this is jumping in a little deeply, but please note the last
> sentence. It appears to me that Bohr is saying there is no independent
> reality in the ordinary sense. Do you read it that way too?
>
> >
> >[Dan]
> >If (in fact) what we perceive as objects existed prior to the idea of the
> >objects then there would be no possibility of multiple contradictory
> >viewpoints coexisting.
> >
> >[Case]
> >Complementarity is also denied if "what we perceive as objects did not
> >exist
> >prior to the idea of the objects." But I don't think complementarity says
> >that mutually contradictory ideas must coexist. Only that sometimes it is
> >permissible and after all you never know what might happen.
>
> Why the quotes are around words I didn't write? Anway, this might help:
>
> In the discussions of these questions, it must be kept in mind that,
> according to the view taken above, radiation in free space as well as
> isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties on the
> quantum theory being definable and observable only through their
> interactions with other systems. Nevertheless, these abstractions are, as we
> shall see, indispensable for a description of experience in connection with
> our ordinary space-time view. (The Philosophy of Niels Bohr Page 117)
>
> Dan comments:
>
> Since both energy and matter are abstractions, I think the framework of
> complementarity alligns well with the MOQ in agreeing with the Buddhist
> notion of "nothingness", that reality is the idea we hold of it. Those ideas
> are indespensable from our ordinary space-time point of view but there is
> nothing to be found lurking behind the ideas.
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>
> Dan
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>