[MD] Quantum Physics

[Laird Bedore]

>>>> [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]
Okay, I certainly can agree to that based upon the whole collection of 
his work. I was under the impression that we were discussing the 
particular quote and comments you added to the conversation. A 
difference of scope.


>> 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]
The impact of our different scopes has mixed us up here as well. In SODV 
he discusses potential compatibility between MoQ and complementarity in 
particular, but in the quote in Lila's Child he broadens to MoQ with 
science in general, quantum theory (of which complementarity is a 
subset) as example. The contexts are quite different indeed.

To go back to your initial comments following the quote, you shot a 
little wide-of-target by saying "RMP seems to be disavowing _any_ 
supposed link between quantum theory and the Metaphysics of Quality." 
Pirsig may have disavowed his prior association (made in SODV) 
specifically between complementarity and the MoQ. Disavowing _any_ 
supposed link would indicate a baseline incompatibility between quantum 
theory and MoQ, which would be an admission that the MoQ isn't meeting 
the mark of what a metaphysics is supposed to do. Certainly not good rigor.


>>>> [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]
Given the use of 'falsification' as the scientific principle of such (I 
first read it otherwise), your comment is a tautology. Pirsig's 
statement is use of preemptive falsification to allow for an improved 
future explanation. There's not a whole lot I can say to a tautology!

To falsification, rather, falsifiability as a means of judging the rigor 
of a scientific theory. One has to use a very broad brush of 
falsifiability to paint a philosophy within its grasp (the testability 
aspect often leads to a bootstrap problem). It's quite a challenge to 
use the falsifiability principle on this scope, but if done well can 
provide a defensible degree of rigor (to the MoQ).

I get the feeling we're much closer to discussing the same subject now. :)

Thanks Dan,

-Laird