[MD] Quantum Physics

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Laird Bedore <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:08:32 -0500
>
>Hi Dan,
>
>What if we took his first sentence as saying that objects come from
>ideas, which have a deeper source (Quality) in the MoQ?

Hi Laird

Sure there's that in the second part of the sentence.

>It seems to me
>he's making a suggestion that the MoQ accommodates the creation of
>quantum theory, and also can accommodate (a retuned) scientific
>objectivism by use of philosophic idealism (pragmatically bridging the
>gap).

I'm sorry but I have read and re-read the sentence and I see no mention of 
the creation of quantum theory. What do you mean here?

>I read it as being an inclusive suggestion rather than an
>exclusive (disavowing) one.

What about the first part of his sentence? Have you read the SODV paper? 
Have you read LILA'S CHILD? I think it is helpful to know a little of the 
history here before proceeding.

>He's allowing for improved explainations of
>phenomena (his slit experiment/light example) to emerge but not
>dictating one in particular: "There may be a higher quality one that
>contradicts [the highest-quality assumption one can make about light]."

This is falsification. Science is based on falsification as well as the MOQ. 
Religion is not.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan

>
>Regards,
>-Laird
>
>
> > [Dan Glover]
> > 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
> >