[MD] Quantum Physics

[David M]

Hi Laird

Coming late in my reading life to MOQ
I have always seen it as a general description
of experience that fits better with the implications
of quantum theory than SOM does and helps to
overcome some of the interpretation problems
with quantum theory that are actually due to
an SOM take on experience. An MOQ take
on experience shows how quantum theory is
not so out of kilter with experience as an SOM
take on experience throws up.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laird Bedore" <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics


> Hi Ant, David,
>
> I've been just letting Ant's suggestion roll around in my head a bit.
> When I read it, i seemed to immediately both agree and disagree with it,
> but without quite picking up why. I screwed up my statement right at the
> start!
>
> In my statement I said, "Quantum Physics is the attempt to understand
> the interaction-point between DQ and SQ." Ant, I agree with you that
> quantum _physics_ (a la extension of classical physics) is more
> narrowly-defined. But looking forward into the rest of the statement,
> it's apparent that I wasn't talking about quantum physics in particular
> but quantum mechanics in general (my poor choice of words):
>
> [Laird]
>> Quantum probabilities and potentialities describe
>> the likelihood of particular interaction-points
>> where DQ can become SQ. The quantum observation
>> "problem" is when we "force" DQ to latch to SQ,
>> providing us a static value in one quantum-
>> dimension but thereby eliminating the DQ potentiality
>> in all others.
>
> Ant said, "(Laird's statement) could be describing the continual 
> interaction between an artist and a canvass or other interactions which 
> are part of the macro world (for instance, in the biological and social 
> realms) rather the micro world."
>
> And to that I say, damn right! The only way the concept of quantum 
> interaction occurring for all levels could hold serious conflict with the 
> MoQ is if quantum mechanics are kept under strict SOM determinism. Aside 
> from a few very small camps, quantum mechanics is all about throwing 
> determinism out the window and looking 'behind the curtain' of many SOM 
> assumptions. That in mind, either quantum collapse or DQ-interaction upon 
> intellect can potentially be seen as the (same) source of consciousness.
>
> Thanks guys,
> -Laird
>
>
>
>> [David M]
>> Hi Ant/Laird
>>
>> I'm with Laird on this and I think Ant
>> is thinking about quantum behaviour
>> too reductionistically. 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 idoes 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 clearlyconfronts has to
>> be played out at all levels so I cannot see
>> any reduction by Laird here.
>>
>> It is all ripples of the Nothing.
>>
>> DavId M
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>
>> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:14 PM
>> Subject: [MD] Quantum Physics
>>
>>
>>
>>>> From: Laird Bedore stated November 30th:
>>>>
>>>> I'm pulling this straight from the sky with a wide-open invitation to
>>>> cut it up into little bits:
>>>>
>>>> Quantum Physics is the attempt to understand the interaction-point
>>>> between DQ and SQ.
>>>>
>>> Laird,
>>>
>>> Regarding the MOQ, I think it would be better to say that quantum 
>>> physics
>>> is
>>> solely concerned with explaining and manipulating inorganic static 
>>> quality
>>> patterns _at the micro-level_ rather than the interaction-point between
>>> _all_ DQ and SQ.
>>>
>>> To say quantum physics is "The interaction point between [all] DQ and 
>>> SQ"
>>> doesn't seem to lay right with me as that same sentence could be
>>> describing
>>> the continual interaction between an artist and a canvass or other
>>> interactions which are part of the macro world (for instance, in the
>>> biological and social realms) rather the micro world.  In other words, 
>>> the
>>> definition you give above is too reductionist (towards ontological
>>> materialism)!
>>>
>>> In addition to the work of John D. Barrow previously mentioned, I should
>>> have also directed you to "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values" which is
>>> Pirsig's own paper on the MOQ and quantum physics (given at the 1995
>>> Einstein meets Magritte Conference).  It can be found on the Forum page 
>>> at
>>> moq.org.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>>
> 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/
>