[MD] Quantum Physics

Sun Dec 3 18:00:43 PST 2006

Hi Dan, All,

I looked back in ZMM to find this;
“I talked about Phædrus' lateral drift, which ended with entry into 
the discipline of philosophy. He saw philosophy as the highest echelon 
of the entire hierarchy of knowledge. Among philosophers this is so 
widely believed it's almost a platitude, but for him it's a 
revelation. He discovered that the science he'd once thought of as the 
whole world of knowledge is only a branch of philosophy, which is far 
broader and far more general. The questions he had asked about 
infinite hypotheses hadn't been of interest to science because they 
weren't scientific questions. Science cannot study scientific method 
without getting into a bootstrap problem that destroys the validity of 
its answers. The questions he'd asked were at a higher level than 
science goes. And so Phædrus found in philosophy a natural 
continuation of the question that brought him to science in the first 
place, What does it all mean? What's the purpose of all this?”

“A higher level than science goes?” 

I think what he is saying here is what he was saying earlier. Quantum 
mechanics need the Quality of philosophy in order to bring the 
findings, the higher level of intellect into the lower level of 
society. If you do not separate science and religion as we do in the 
West, maybe the philosophers can see the artistic or spiritual side of 
what qm tells us. 

As also said in ZMM; “ Normally when you have a new idea to present in 
an academic environment you're supposed to be objective and 
disinterested in it. But this idea of Quality took issue with that 
very supposition...of objectivity and disinterestedness. These were 
mannerisms appropriate only to dualistic reason. Dualistic excellence 
is achieved by objectivity, but creative excellence is not.”

A new view, a creative view over the static intellect is needed to 
bring to light what quantum physics brings us. The intellect is the 
highest level, but this does not mean we stick to the imitative poetry 
of scientific method that worked prior to qm. 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, December 3, 2006 5:00 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> Hello everyone
> 
> Robert Pirsig from LILA'S CHILD:
> 
> I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV
> paper that the key to integrating the MOQ with science is
> through philosophic idealism, which says that objects grow
> out of ideas, not the other way around. Since at the most
> primary level the observed and the observer are both
> intellectual assumptions, the paradoxes of quantum theory
> have to be conflicts of intellectual assumption, not just
> conflicts of what is observed. Except in the case of
> Dynamic Quality, what is observed always involves an
> interaction with ideas that have been previously assumed.
> So the problem is not, “How can observed nature be so
> screwy?” but can also be, “What is wrong with our most
> primitive assumptions that our set of ideas called ‘nature’
> are turning out to be this screwy?” Getting back to physics,
> this question becomes, “Why should we assume that the
> slit experiment should perform differently than it does?” I
> think that if researched it would be found that buried in the
> data of the slit experiment is an assumption that light exists
> and follows consistent laws independently of any human
> experience. If so, the MOQ would say that although in the
> past this seems to have been the highest quality assumption
> one can make about light, there may be a higher quality
> one that contradicts it. This is pretty much what the
> physicists are saying but the MOQ provides a sound
> metaphysical structure within which they can say it. (P 311)
> 
> Dan comments:
> In the first sentence, RMP seems to be disavowing any supposed 
> link between 
> quantum theory and the Metaphysics of Quality. In the second 
> sentence he 
> answers all the questions that have arisen in this thread. In the 
> third 
> sentence he is eliminating any possible knowledge of Dyanmic 
> Quality in 
> static quality terms. Finally, Mr. Pirsig fixtures this whole 
> problem as an 
> assumption based on subject-object thinking that the reality 
> quantum theory 
> seeks to reveal is really "out there" existing independently of 
> the 
> observer.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> >From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> >Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
> >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:19:18 -0500
> >
> >
> >DMB/Laird/Ant/David/Chin/SA --
> >
> >Laird said:
> > > 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.
> >
> >David said:
> > > It is a very key basic of Quantum theory
> > > that the possible exists, is real and
> > > effects what becomes actual, i.e. possibles form
> > > interference patterns prior to wave collapses (actualisation),
> > > so the actual is a subset of the real.
> > > Hence 'many worlds' suggests that maybe all possibles
> > > become actual in different worlds to retain determinism
> > > i.e. all sets have actuality.
> > > It takes a a big leap to start getting this principle of
> > > quantum theory. I recommend Prigogine's
> > > The End of Certainty.
> >
> >I find it astonishing that a proponent of a philosophy founded on 
> Quality>would seek to explain Reality by the principles of Quantum 
> Physics.  
> >Doesn't
> >this destroy the whole MoQ epistemology that Pirsig labored so 
> hard to put
> >across?  And now we have David urging us into New Age mysticism by
> >speculating that "all possibles become actual in different worlds 
> to retain
> >determinism."
> >
> >If the intellect is what breaks DQ into the levels and patterns that
> >establish experiential reality, why on earth would a believer in 
> the MoQ
> >attempt to redefine reality by a deterministic theory of 
> creation?   
> >Surely,
> >even if one cannot bring himself to understand intellect as a 
> property of
> >the observing self, nothing that Pirsig has said or implied about 
> Intellect>would lead us to believe that it is constructed of 
> collapsing 
> >particle/waves
> >or formed by their "interaction points".  I submit that the 
> author of MoQ
> >would consider such metaphysical degradation of his philosophy the
> >"lowest-quality" kind of thinking.
> >
> >Read again what Pirsig said about his "source", Quality, and how 
> he sees
> >finite "events" derived from it:
> >
> >"Quality cannot be independently derived from either mind or 
> matter. But it
> >can be derived from the relationship of mind and matter with each 
> other.>Quality occurs at the point at which subject and object 
> meet. Quality is 
> >not
> >a thing. It is an event. It is the event at which the subject 
> becomes aware
> >of the object. And because without objects there can be no 
> subject, quality
> >is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made
> >possible. Quality is not just the result of a collision between 
> subject and
> >object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is 
> deduced from
> >the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects 
and
> >objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of 
> the 
> >Quality!"
> >     --[Pirsig: SODV, page 11]
> >
> >Does this sound like an interaction of "quantum probabilities" to 
> you?>
> >Regards,
> >Ham
> >
> >
> >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/
> 
> 
> 