[MD] Quantum Physics

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

 >     [Chin]
> > 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.
> 
>  (SA) Your perspective seems to be 'what is dq and what
> is sq' is based on if society has accepted it or not. 
> So, would a society of qp professors notice qp as a
> static pattern, maybe some it, or not a lot of it. 
> Thus, does dq come down to who knows it and who
> doesn't, therefore, perspective of a person states
> whether 'something' is dq or not?  

Chin -- It would come down to whether it is accepted or not. In the 
analogy of a society of professors, it would depend on whether it was 
the latest theory that was considered most factual. 

>     [Chin]
> > If it were accepted by society, then it becomes SQ. 
> 
> 
>     Here's the society perspective you mention.
> 
>     [Chin] 
> > ...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.
> 
>     Your basing what dq is or not, on what societies
> perspective is?

Chin -- Yes, for society (on that scale) once it is accepted it 
becomes sq. 

>     [Chin]
> > 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.
> 
> 
> (SA)     So, your saying it has to do with 'preference',
> as in "I personally like..."?

Chin -- Yes. I might see Gravity Theory as DQ, as it appears to me to 
be the most likely theory of creation, and if my perspective of 
Gravity Theory changed to the point I thought it was ‘The’ creation 
theory, then it would become sq to me. 
 
>     [Chin]
> > 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. 

>(SA)    Society perspective?  I'm not quite sure about
> this basis for what dq is or not.  I just simply say
> dq has no definition, and leave it at that.  I'm not
> going to state whether something is more new or less
> new and base that decision on whether 'something' has
> more or less dq or any dq, etc...

Chin -- I am not trying to define, but simply use examples to show how 
DQ might become sq. Once we considered what we viewed as DQ, an idea 
worth considering became accepted as fact or the latest theory that 
would change the way we viewed something, such as MOQ or quantum 
physics proved more believable than SOM, then MOQ and/or quantum 
physics would then become sq, whether personally or as a society.  
  
>     [Chin]
> > 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. 
> 
>(SA) What I'm saying if we follow the 'what is more or
> less new' path, then yes it would lead to such
> conclusions you've just stated here.  Yet, I simple
> state dq is undefined, and leave it at that, not:
> 'what is more or less new'.  That is defining, that is
> sq.
Chin -- It would not necessarily be more or less ‘New” per se, but 
more or less dynamic, but generally what would be new thinking would 
be dynamic where our old way of looking at things might become 
questionable. Once what we believed is replaced by a new belief, the 
new belief would no longer be dynamic, it would become static. The old 
static way of looking at things, say SOM would no longer be in the 
picture, or considered inadequate. The best analogy of this on the 
personal level would be the old song you had forgotten about, then 
heard it one day and loved it so much you ran out and bought the 
record -- it had DQ. Then you started playing it for all your friends 
until the new feeling you got from the old song was lost -- then it 
went back into the sq slot. 

Maybe it would help if I said that on a personal level society might 
influence, but does not determine DQ or sq. 

>     [Chin]
> > 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. 
> 
>(SA) I don't want to veer you away from your true
> self.

Chin -- Thanks. I’m still working on finding my true self. I wonder if 
anyone is capable of doing so. 

> woods,
> SA

BTW, I do share your views on nature. My pilgrimage would be a trip to 
any small creek isolated from the noise of the city. It is the 
atmosphere I am most comfortable in finding my true self and stripping 
away some of the sq that has managed to latch, and the false self 
starts trying to take over. 

You think the self-reflection in Buddhism and Pirsig’s might be close? 
You think Pirsig found his true self or may have lost himself once he 
started answering the questions asked of him on Quality? 

You think it possible we may lose our self more than gain it when we 
enter into discussions? 

You don’t have to answer any of this. I’m just thinking to myself. ;o) 

Chin