[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 22:49:44 -0500
>
>
> >> [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.

Dan:
Where did I deny this?

>Laird:
>I may have been getting a little ahead of
>myself by attaching quantum theory to my interpretation of just the
>_first_ sentence.

Just the_first_sentence is what YOU wrote.

>
>
> >> [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!

Dan:
Yes but his views have changed. When he wrote the SODV paper he was under 
the impression that the framework of complementarity and the MOQ were 
philosophically similar. However, in subsequent writings he has made it 
clear that while they seem similar the contexts differ on a fundamental 
level. That was my point!


>Laird:
>I appreciate the concern, but yes, I have read both.

Dan:
Well, good.

>Laird:
>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.

Dan:
The disavowal isn't in regard to quantum theory but rather the way quantum 
theory and the MOQ relate. The context is different. If you've read LILA'S 
CHILD you know the quote I'm referring to, right?

>
>
> >> [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:

Dan:
Check this out, please:  
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

There's ton's of other stuff on falsification if you do a google on it.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan