[MD] Quantum Physics

Sun Dec 3 07:29:58 PST 2006

Sure. But what is changing reality? What is changing the way we think? 
Dynamic quality is na-da, nothing, undefined, so, I don't think dq is 
doing 'anything'. It is doing nothing. It is doing everything... 

Hi SA,

Don’t get me wrong, I am not thinking DQ would have to do anything, it 
is just another word to describe. As quantum physics might be the DQ 
of today, Eastern philosophy the DQ of the 70s here in the US when ZMM 
was written, or even Christianity when it took over the Western world 
and spread its influences throughout the world. 

You said;
Yeah, perspective is newtonian physics (np) is sq. Perspective is 
quantum physics (qp) is dq. This is your perspective here Chin, and jo-
jo says I am a quantum physics professor and qp is sq, what's np?

I couldn’t speak for the professor, but I doubt qp is understood 
satisfactorily by anyone other than the physicists and possibly many 
or even a majority of professors who might accept quantum mechanics as 
all there is to quantum physics. Gravity would be DQ reemerging from 
SQ in the theory of gravity as the creator of the solar system(s). If 
it were accepted by society, then it becomes SQ.  

The intellectual level should always be in a state of DQ. Science, 
art, and even religion and politics should remain in a state of 
questioning the reality we think we know. 

And, no, I wouldn’t be trying to stick a definition on Quality, but I 
feel I can safely say that which offers the potential to change the 
way society looks at things, as you say “Perspective,” would be DQ. 
Under this view, Ham’s Essence would be considered DQ. It doesn’t do 
anything for me, but obviously it has become an immortal principle to 
him. Who’s to say who’s right? I personally like the Gravity Theory, 
possibly due to my ignorance, or “Tenth Grade” mentality. MOQ is still 
DQ.  Either one would still be considered DQ, as you say, it has not 
managed a SQ latch, or society as we know it has not accepted either 
as fact or the latest theory. 

I think you are saying our own personal SQ can override the society or 
culture we happen to be in, and what might look like DQ when 
considering the culture would be SQ to us. I agree. 

Maybe I am too simple, but I don’t have any difficulties (in my own 
mind) understanding MOQ or quantum physics, or at least what it says 
to me. So it might be said MOQ and qp are sq in my own personal little 
world. 

So right? 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, December 2, 2006 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
>     [Phaedrus]
> > What is wrong with my thinking here. 
> 
>     'something' wrong with your thinking?
> 
>     [Phaedrus]
> > On the social level, quantum 
> > physics is denied.
> 
>     A group of people study quantum physics.
> 
>     [Phaedrus-Chin, that's right, I just remembered
> your other name is Chin, anyways...]
> > You might hear the statement, ?I
> > understand 
> > Newtonian physics, so I can live with that, but I do
> > not understand 
> > quantum physics. 
> 
>     ok, you don't understand quantum physics.
> 
>     [Chin]
> > In this statement you would be describing Newtonian
> > physics as SQ, and 
> > quantum physics would be DQ, ?the track that leads
> > the train.?
> 
>     Yeah, perspective is newtonian physics (np) is
> sq.  Perspective is quantum physics (qp) is dq.  This
> is your perspective here Chin, and jo-jo says I am a
> quantum physics professor and qp is sq, what's np?  I
> heard about that stuff, oh, yeah that apple and all -
> gravity, yeah, that's cool.  dqin' the np. 
> Perspective shifts here.  So, without shiftin' just
> quality.  That's one Way to put it simply - just
> quality.  I understand though, this is your narrative.
> You don't understand qp so it's dq with you, and np
> is sqin' with you.  
> 
>     [Chin] 
> > Anything that has the power to change the way we
> > understand reality, 
> > but has not yet been accepted, or is not yet
> > understood well enough 
> > that it can fit its way into mainstream thinking
> > would be DQ, right? 
> 
>     Sure.  But what is changing reality?  What is
> changing the way we think?  Dynamic quality is na-da,
> nothing, undefined, so, I don't think dq is doing
> 'anything'.  It is doing nothing.  It is doing
> everything...  
> 
>     ..."Aaaa, dq, I've got to latch," talkin' to
> myself
>               "Oh, ok, I'll latch," sq says.
>         "Sq, I'm talkin' to dq,"  talkin' to myself
>               "This is dq silly," sq says.
>         "I know dq, and dq can't latch.  Only static
> quality latches," talkin' to myself
>               "How do you think I'm so new?" sq says.
>         "sq quit it.  dq, I'm talkin' to ya"  talkin'
> to myself
>               
>         "dq... dq..."  talkin' to myself
> 
>         "Hey, dq!!!"  talkin' to myself
> 
>         "I can't hear you,"  talkin' to myself
> 
>     [Chin]
> > Both Quality and quantum physics are still in the DQ
> > stages(?)
> 
>     Could be.  yet, we've got this 'thing' called
> string theory, too.  hmmmmm.
> 
> woods,
> SA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 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/
> 