[MD] Quantum Physics

[David M]

Hi Dan

Is there any reason why religion should not
embrace falsification?

Whenever someone claims the authority of
revelation I suggest that they also need
to check out what has been revealed by
science. Why stick with old revelation
and ignore more up to date revelation,
or do they think god is no longer undertaking
revelations? And if one revelation contradicts
another, maybe the current stuff is what we
are currently up to receiving and is an improvement
on revelations designed for ancient societies
and cultures.

Can't beat a bit of rhetoric can you?

Ofcourse, you can just drop the whole
revelation concept.

Mind you,what if someone came up with a theory
of everything that worked and said that god
revealed it to them. Would that still be science?

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics


> 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
>> >
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 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/