[MD] Quantum Physics

[David M]

Hi Ant

I certainly agree that we will using
different language and models
to describe patterns at the different
levels, but there are some common
aspects to all the levels too, &
links too, hence
the need to look at the micro-macro
relationship such as with Schrodinger's cat.
I also see the recognition in QT of the reality
and impact of what is possible on what
becomes actual has something to say
about how we think about our everyday
experience. Are we not drenched in possilities
of which we only make a small part actual,
in every moment. EG the sentences I have typed
above are just a tiny selection from those I might
have, although all of them seem to rub DMB up
the wrong way! What is real and possible and
may or may not become actual is the very meaning
of DQ for me. What else could it mean? This is one of the
temporal dimensions covered in part II of Being and Time
by the way.

Davids M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 3:14 AM
Subject: [MD] Quantum Physics


> David Morey stated December 2nd:
>
>>Penrose certainly
>>thinks that the collapse of the wave
>>function may be very closely aligned
>>to what consiousness 'does' and
>>the emergence of the actual from
>>a broadly spread range of possibiltities
>>is what I'd describe DQ as doing.
>>DQ does not provide change by
>>disturbing SQ, rather it is able to
>>draw on a vast realm of possibilties to
>>populate what we know as actual.
>>Consciousness is unifies SQ and DQ
>>and is no more tha SQ and DQ unified
>>or in tension, and SQ and DQ is nature-it-itself
>>and is not absent at any level, the point of
>>interction between the possible and the actual
>>that quantum thoery clearly confronts has to
>>be played out at all levels so I cannot see
>>any reduction by Laird here.
>
>
> David,
>
> Parts of this paragraph seem rather obscure to me.  For a start, how can 
> the
> "possible" which doesn't exist (yet), interact with the "actual" which 
> does
> exist?
>
> Anyway, I think this issue all comes down to whether or not you think
> physics is the most useful tool to describe and predict the behaviour of 
> all
> static quality patterns or that it is more useful to avoid this 
> reductionism
> and assume (pragmatically) that it's better off just handling particular
> inorganic static patterns and leaving the remaining static patterns to 
> other
> specialisations (such as chemistry, biology, anthropology etc.).  For
> instance, as I just pointed out to SA, does an anthropologist or a
> politician have any use for quantum theory in understanding social 
> patterns
> of value?
>
> As I also noted to SA, the assumption that quantum physics is "The
> interaction point between [all] DQ and SQ" reminds me of the consciousness
> "problem" of all these SOM philosophers who "forget" that quantum 
> mechanics
> is simply a _ provisional_ set of concepts that (presently) work fine when
> dealing with micro scale inorganic static patterns rather than being the
> _"literal"_ way things are.  To think this way just isn't pragmatic!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Anthony.
>
>
>
> .
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows LiveT Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!
> http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 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/