[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: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:25:42 -0500
>
>
> >>>> [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.

There's been a good deal of talk here lately about quantum theory and the 
MOQ. The SODV paper was mentioned as a source so I thought it might be good 
to remind people of some of Robert Pirsig's subsequent writings. I didn't 
just throw the quote out there from nowhere.

>
>
> >> 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.

You are still missing the point.

>
>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.

>From the SODV paper:

When I sent in the title of this paper in February I hadn't written this 
paper yet and so I kept the title very general to allow myself plenty of 
room. Now the paper is finished and I can add a subtitle that is more 
specific. The subtitle is, "Some Connections Between the Metaphysics of 
Quality and Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Complementarity." As I see it, Bohr's 
Complementarity and the Metaphysics of Quality stand midway between Einstein 
and Magritte. I have concentrated on Bohr's work as a way of making the 
larger connection. (Robert Pirsig)

This the "supposed link" that I refer to. You seem to be focusing on _any_ 
which is a mistake. I didn't place any such emphasis in my original post as 
you can clearly see for yourself if you take the time.

>
>
> >>>> [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.

Please explain how my comment is a tautology.

>Pirsig's
>statement is use of preemptive falsification to allow for an improved
>future explanation.

No. Scientific theories are advanced to explain the 2 slit experiment but 
there may be a higher quality explanation that contradicts present theories. 
That's recognizing the value of science as well as the scientific process.

Oh, and by the way, what (on earth!) is a preemptive falsification?

>There's not a whole lot I can say to a tautology!

Then I suppose you should keep quiet. That's what I do.

>
>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 am afraid you're talking past me here.

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

I am happy that you feel that way.