[MD] Quantum Physics

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:00:43 -0500
>
>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?”

Please remember this is Phaedrus's point of view.

>
>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.

I think Bohr would agree.

>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.

Why?

>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.

By qm I assume you mean quantum mechanics, which is a set of intellectual 
pattens of value concerned with describing the nature of reality on the 
quantum level. I don't understand why this particular branch of science 
should hold sway over the other sciences or the scientific method itself. 
Could you explain?

Thank you,

Dan