[MD] Quantum Physics

[Laird Bedore]

>> [Laird]
>> 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?
> [Dan]
> Hi Laird
>
> Sure there's that in the second part of the sentence.
>
>> [Laird]
>> 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).
> [Dan]
> 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?
>
[Laird]
Perhaps I put the list of accommodations in the wrong order. But the 
overall quote from Pirsig does concern itself with the MoQ being a 
better foundation for scientists' study of science in general and 
quantum theory in particular. I may have been getting a little ahead of 
myself by attaching quantum theory to my interpretation of just the 
_first_ sentence.


>> [Laird]
>> I read it as being an inclusive suggestion rather than an
>> exclusive (disavowing) one.
> [Dan]
> 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.
>
[Laird]
In the first part of his sentence, "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" he's talking about integrating the MOQ 
with science!

I appreciate the concern, but yes, I have read both. My comment points 
at a basic premise of the MoQ - that it is inclusive in its nature, 
particularly moreso than SOM. I certainly have not gained an impression 
of Pirsig as a dissenter to quantum theory, and the quote in question is 
no different in that regard.


>> [Laird]
>> 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]."
> [Dan]
> This is falsification. Science is based on falsification as well as 
> the MOQ. Religion is not.
>
>
[Laird]
I'm not quite sure what to make of this... First, what is falsified 
about it? His original quote is:

 > 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.

He's certainly not dictating an improved law of light, just noting that 
the MoQ is keen to accept improvements to the current-best assumption.

Second, what is the intended point of the religion comment? Is a 
metaphysics that doesn't scream "no" and slam the door in the face of 
quantum theory tantamount to religion? Negation of the observed 
'falsification principle' doesn't imply negation of science or MoQ into 
religion... That seems to follow the logically-troubled "the enemy of my 
enemy is my friend" mantra. I just don't get where you're going with 
this statement.

-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
>> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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/