[MD] Quantum Physics

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

> >Hi Dan, All,
> >
> >I looked back in ZMM to find this;
> >“I talked about Phædrus' lateral drift, which ended with entry into
> >the discipline of philosophy. He saw philosophy as the highest 
> echelon>of the entire hierarchy of knowledge. Among philosophers 
> this is so
> >widely believed it's almost a platitude, but for him it's a
> >revelation. He discovered that the science he'd once thought of 
> as the
> >whole world of knowledge is only a branch of philosophy, which is 
far
> >broader and far more general. The questions he had asked about
> >infinite hypotheses hadn't been of interest to science because they
> >weren't scientific questions. Science cannot study scientific method
> >without getting into a bootstrap problem that destroys the 
> validity of
> >its answers. The questions he'd asked were at a higher level than
> >science goes. And so Phædrus found in philosophy a natural
> >continuation of the question that brought him to science in the 
first
> >place, What does it all mean? What's the purpose of all this?”
> >
>>Chin) “A higher level than science goes?”
> 
>Dan) Please remember this is Phaedrus's point of view.

Chin) And Phaedrus and Pirsig would be the same person, Phaedrus 
without the benefit of society’s control. Sanity is overrated. 

FWIW, I have a more pessimistic view of the education system than 
Phaedrus did. 

> >Chin) I think what he is saying here is what he was saying earlier. 
Quantum
> >mechanics need the Quality of philosophy in order to bring the
> >findings, the higher level of intellect into the lower level of
> >society.
> 
> Dan) I think Bohr would agree.
> 
> >If you do not separate science and religion as we do in the
> >West, maybe the philosophers can see the artistic or spiritual 
> side of
> >what qm tells us.
> >
> >As also said in ZMM; “ Normally when you have a new idea to 
> present in
> >an academic environment you're supposed to be objective and
> >disinterested in it. But this idea of Quality took issue with that
> >very supposition...of objectivity and disinterestedness. These were
> >mannerisms appropriate only to dualistic reason. Dualistic 
excellence
> >is achieved by objectivity, but creative excellence is not.”
> >
> >A new view, a creative view over the static intellect is needed to
> >bring to light what quantum physics brings us.
> 
> Dan) Why?

Chin) For the same reason Bohr would agree; “complementarily,” or the 
need to explain beyond the simple mechanics. 

> >The intellect is the
> >highest level, but this does not mean we stick to the imitative 
> poetry>of scientific method that worked prior to qm.
> 
> Dan) By qm I assume you mean quantum mechanics, which is a set of 
> intellectual 
> pattens of value concerned with describing the nature of reality 
> on the 
> quantum level. I don't understand why this particular branch of 
> science 
> should hold sway over the other sciences or the scientific method 
> itself. 
> Could you explain?

Chin) SOM doesn’t work. 

I know who you are, and know you have written much on this. Maybe you 
could read what I replied to SA, or my “assumptions” Laird questioned 
me about in the first post in this subject line. For your convenience, 
I’ll post it below.  I would love for anyone to straighten me out on 
these assumptions, as I don’t claim to be a physicist or philosopher 
for that matter. Rip me apart, make me look like an idiot, whatever. I 
am not thin skinned, and am only here to learn. 

> [Chin] > I can’t claim a study in Quantum Physics, as most of what I 
have > gotten has come from word of mouth from folks looking for 
financial > advice who were familiar with it, and as you say, 
stumbling across a > little on the web. > > Some assumptions I have 
gained; 

> > There is no such thing in quantum physics as solid matter. All 
solid > matter would be probability patterns that are hard to 
compress. > > 

[Laird] Yes, strictly speaking. Though probabilistic quanta can emerge 
as a representation we think of as solid matter... quantum collapse 
into our 3 dimensions. They're challenging our deterministic yes/no 
type descriptions. 

> [Chin] > The same micro particles which pass through us pass through 
all of us, > the trees and the moon I point at ;), > >  (the moon part 
was pointed toward something Laird has said to me earlier Dan) 

[Laird] Now this is an interesting one. Is this suggesting that the 
quanta that make up our atomic particles interchange rather freely 
(probabilistically), but the atomic structures we experience remain 
stable (at least to the limit of atomic decay?) 

> [Chin] > The atom is made up of empty space, with nothing we could 
call solid, > as the protons and neutrons are sometimes particles and 
sometimes > waves, and as far as we can know, sometimes nothing. The 
vastness of > this space compared to the size of the proton offers 
nothing in the > way of a material substance. > > 

[Laird] Oh yes. Even in the classical atomic model there's such an 
amazingly massive void, not only within, but also between attached 
particles. Quantum theory explains this interestingly - Preserving the 
electron energy levels from classic particle physics for the moment 
(so I can explain it), we observe that when two atoms come into 
contact, their outer energy levels cannot cross dimensionally past 
each other, even if only one electron exists in the ridiculously vast 
surface of the energy level. Classical physics sees this as a mystery, 
sometimes passed-off as an electromagnetic force field effect, but 
with no feasible energy source (and not much care for the second law 
of thermodynamics). Quantum theory says that the electron is 
everywhere across the energy level's probabilistic field at the same 
time, and that only when the surface of the energy field is "prodded" 
by another atom does the electron's quantum state collapse into a 
definitive point in 3D space (conveniently
 at the 'right' point, blocking the unwelcome intrusion). Interesting 
that the sci-fi idea of a "force field" is inherent in quantum 
physics! 

> [Chin] > One interesting thought I came across which is a better 
theory of > creation than anything else I have heard. Electrons 
rubbing together > (friction) created gravity, and gravity pulled the 
gasses into what we > now know as planets and stars. With Hawking 
Radiation from the Black > Holes, this may be more re-creation than 
creation, as the universe can > only be described as infinite. > 

[Laird] Entanglement. I haven't read enough yet, but I'm sure somebody 
somewhere has put together a theory describing a "critical mass" of 
entanglement - that once so many quanta become entangled, they 
eventually freak out, do some crazy stuff, and untangle. So imagine 
all quanta except one are entangled. That one last straggler entangles 
with the rest. There's only one possible change for the quanta to 
experience, since they're all hooked to everything everywhere. Boom! 
They detangle, and in our 3D (+time) terms we call it the Big Bang. 
The quanta immediately start entangling again in countless little 
strings and webs (patterns!). And in a matter of (a LOT of) time 
they'll all entangle again and go Boom! Recreation, indeed. I like it. 
VERY much Scott Adams' "God's Debris" analogy, but much more palatable 
as quanta than as particles of God. 

> [Chin] > Quantum physics is complicated, but more so, it questions 
what I have > called our predetermined prejudices, and one of the 
predetermined > prejudices it questions is SOM, such as in A cannot be 
both B and not > B (shortened) – something cannot come from nothing – 
and there must be > a cause. > > 

[Laird] It's interesting seeing the myriad different approaches that 
scientists are taking to quantum physics. They're all seeing the world 
in a slightly different way, and all catching a sideways glance of 
something kinda missing, and all trying different approaches to 
resolve it. Slowly, all of our assumptions are being questioned, 
especially SOM. The fundamental concepts of quantum theory not only 
dismiss SOM, but (to use SOM's own determinism) "prove" SOM incomplete 
and flawed. But mass-understanding and acceptance is a long way off. 
Just look at all the "Children of Abraham" for an idea on 
timescales. :) 

> [Chin] > What we think we know, we may not. Einstein said, “Common 
sense is the > collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen,” but 
then when it > came to making something out of nothing, the 
instruments he and Bohr > were using appeared to be measuring 
themselves, it seems his own > common sense got in the way. > > But, 
when Bohr brought his findings to the US, they seemed to work, > and 
Hiroshima would be proof. I don’t know science is value free, at > 
least not the scientists, because all two of the physicists I have had 
> the honor to meet were quite concerned with how their work would be 
> used. Saying politics is value free might fit a bit better. ;o) > > 

[Laird] Ah, SOM is value-free. Science can, is, and will continue to 
slowly transcend SOM, as quantum theory has shown. Since ideas have 
not yet evolved to self-sustaining, self-changing states (they're 
still a bit dependent on us to 'think'), we'll see the SOM evacuation 
start with the scientists. :) Politics are ALL value, it's just such a 
huge melting-pot of value that nothing but brown sludge can come 
out. :P But it's too easy for us to piss on politics (largely a social 
endeavor) when 'looking down' on it from the intellectual level.