[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: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:40:41 -0500
>
>Hi Dan,
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> > Dan:
> > You are still missing the point.
> >
> >
>Laird:
>Would you care to shed some light upon the point then? I think the
>discussion has veered off-course. I'd be happy to start front-and-center
>and go from there.

Ham offered this bit of wisdom on Dec. 3:

"Quality cannot be independently derived from either mind or matter. But it
can be derived from the relationship of mind and matter with each other.
Quality occurs at the point at which subject and object meet. Quality is not
a thing. It is an event. It is the event at which the subject becomes aware
of the object. And because without objects there can be no subject, quality
is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made
possible. Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject and
object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from
the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and
objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!"
    --[Pirsig: SODV, page 11]
Ham:
Does this sound like an interaction of "quantum probabilities" to you?
(end of quote)

Dan:
In subsequent writings Robert Pirsig has explained that although the quality 
event and Bohr's observation may seem the same, the context is different. 
Using quotes from the SODV paper can perhaps be taken out of context unless 
a person is familar with the rest of RMP's work. Hence, my point.

>
>
> >> Laird:
> >> 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.
> >>
> > Dan:
> > >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:
>I suspected you didn't intend such emphasis but your wording allowed for
>it. I was just looking for (and suggesting) clarification.

Email is a challenging way to communicate.

>
>
> >>
> >>>>>> [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.
> >>
> > Dan:
> > Please explain how my comment is a tautology.
> >
> >
>Laird:
>Your comment is a statement of evident fact. "Science is based on
>falsification" - yes, by definition of falsification. Attempts at
>science which do not adopt falsification are pseudoscience. Thus science
>can only be science if it adopts falsification. On the MoQ, it was born
>through the process of falsification against the question "Is quality in
>the subject or in the object?". It's like saying I must have a
>biological mother because I'm human (yup, it's a requirement of
>reproduction!). Circular truth, like the identity property of
>mathematics, is the case of "A implies A" in boolean logic: tautology.

Dan:
A statement of evident fact!?! (After I had to explain the concept to you!) 
Okay. Have it your way. I guess hindsight is always 20/20.

>
>
> >> 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?
> >
> >
>Laird:
>By preemptive I mean that he's projecting a falsification into
>imaginings of the future in order to stage his scenario. We're falling
>toward semantics here.

Dan:
Glub.

>
>
> >> There's not a whole lot I can say to a tautology!
> >>
> >
> > Then I suppose you should keep quiet. That's what I do.
> >
> >
>Laird:
>(crickets chirping) ;)
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
>Laird:
>If you're planning on using falsification outside the confines of
>science, the above is tremendously important. Falsification is a tool
>focused on the tasks of science, and using it outside of those confines
>requires that special care be taken. It's like using a screwdriver to
>mount a tire to a wheel - yeah, it can be done, but compared to using a
>tire spoon you've got to be really careful not to puncture the tire or
>scratch up the rim.

Dan:
No plans really. I mentioned it merely in passing. Some time ago I shared a 
url with the discussion group to a story about how grand master chess 
champions use falsification in their games sometimes without even knowing 
what they're doing. It struck me that Robert Pirsig was doing the same with 
the MOQ. I found it interesting and thought others might as well. Since the 
concept is evident fact to you though, I apologise for wasting your time.