[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Ham - I don't see what Nothingness has to do with the uncertainly 
principle of
quantum physics. The fact that man cannot empirically determine the
velocity or mass of a micro phenomenon does not implicate nothingness. 
It
simply means that we cannot describe the qualitative aspects of the
phenomenon at a given instant of time. Science has pushed the 
frontiers of
observation so far beyond human sensibility that events can only be
quantified in terms of statistical data.

> The only limit to size we could come close to
> would be the observable universe both large and small,
> meaning we would have observed all galaxies, or the
> end of the universe in the Macro, and we would have
> reached the limits in the Micro by stating protons and
> neutrons are solid matter, and made up of a definable
> matter.

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make, and how it
relates to a theory of nothingness.

Hi Ham,

It would not be “velocity and mass” that I would think pointed toward 
the validity of nothingness, but that the protons and neutrons are 
sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave, which would not point 
toward solid matter. On top of that you have to consider the size of 
the protons and neutrons. Consider you blew up the proton to the size 
of a grain of sand on the beach. In this analogy the atom would be the 
beach. What everything is made up of, blown up to scale which we could 
measure it is vast space. 

The bridge you mentioned earlier is made up of the same protons, 
neutrons and electrons we are, and what makes the bridge, or the 
components of the bridge solid could only be defined by probability 
patterns that are hard to compress -- solid matter would be 
probability patterns that are hard to compress? And, the communication 
L has with the trees and the waterfalls would be as real as any 
communication we have through this forum, as these same atoms pass 
through L, the trees, you, me and the stars for that matter. 

There would be nothing distinctive of our make up, other than 
probability patterns, memory or what might be called the cosmic dance. 

And, no, I am not a physicist, so any knowledge I have of Quantum 
Mechanics is what little I can gather from the physicist. 

> At the time of Pacal’s wager, as well as most earlier
> philosophies, there was nothing wrong with his wager.
> We have just advanced in some circles past the idea
> of nothing, to maybe something like the MOQ view
> of ‘No-thing’?

Ham - Please refresh my mind. What is the MOQ view of No-thing?

Chin - The use of “No-thing” would be from an explanation that was 
offered me sometime back from someone here I may very easily 
misrepresent. But, if you think about a concrete thing, everything is 
either in space or time, and space and time are not concrete, so there 
is no concrete thing. The MOQ gets around this in that there is value 
in everything -- everything is Quality, either SQ or DQ. 

Ham - Regarding some of the comments you made previously ...

> Am I mistaken, or does Pirsig not see Quality in
> place of a supreme being? I’m not ready to make
> any statements in this nature other than it seems
> to me Quality works as well as God, Nothingness,
> The One, Atman, &c. The small self, big Self,
> Atman/atman, could fit into Contemplative
> Christianity as well as Quantum Physics, and it
> would seem to me Christianity evolves as
> understandings change, at least to some extent ...

Ham - All of these speculations and comparisons presuppose material 
substance as
the fundamental reality. If Western Religion or Eastern Mysticism are
bending to the latest theories of physicists, it suggests that they are
diluting their beliefs with objectivist ideology and are in a worse 
state
than I had imagined.

Chin - I would have to admit that it would be speculation on my part, 
as there is no way other than possibly predetermined prejudices on my 
part, or maybe a lack of need to delineate, or qualify an eternal 
principle, but to see the similarities of each. Eastern Mysticism, 
spirituality or religions have no need to bend, and Quantum Mechanics 
is only bringing (IMHO) physics up to the Ancient Teachings. I doubt 
Western religions have even considered Quantum Physics, as theology in 
the West is currently taught as opposed to contemplated (as far as I 
can see from the traditional churches). I do see some advances in that 
at least the Catholic are observing the universe, and Easterners are 
joining in the churches and creating their own Christian churches. 
Also, at least the churches, as best as I can tell have accepted the 
earth moves around the sun. That’s ‘Some’ evolvement? :o)

Ham - Human individuals are autonomous and free by their 
(metaphysical) nature,
although they are not necessarily cognizant of this fact. We are the 
true
"choicemakers" of our world; we select the values by which we act and 
are
limited only by finitude and the operating principles of Nature. The
survival instinct is innate in all living creaures. In addition, human
beings are free to organize, explore, create, change society,
design/invent/build new things, develop original concepts, manipulate 
and
control the environment, and discover the pleasures and joys of the 
universe
in accordance with their chosen values.

Chin - We are in agreement here, except I would think more than 
99.9% “Human individuals” sleep through life making only those choices 
that have been programmed into them by society, culture, religion, 
education, with only an illusion of actual choice making. The choice 
making may be more based on what others would think of them or maybe 
what they see others do. 

Dynamic Quality would be from being connected to the universe, or the 
universe within us, beyond the Static Quality of everyday choices, as 
well as those of survival, such as power and wealth. 

As you put it;
“What has hampered this freedom in recent decades is ignorance, apathy,
subservience to religious doctrine, and obsession with technological
innovation, materialistic distractions, infatuation with 
the "celebrity"
life-style and the "humanistic" ideals of egalitarianism which are
destroying the ability to discriminate and maintain the moral values 
of a
civilized society.” 

. . . And I might add ego, violence, and perversion beyond that we 
could attribute to animalistic instinct. 

Thanks for your thoughts. I am neither for or against Nothingness, as 
I offered prior, the word is only to point toward something. Quality 
works fine, and probably work as well for those who contemplate or 
self-reflect, maybe better as it does not need the qualification 
Nothingness does. 

Chin