[MD] Quantum Physics

[Laird Bedore]

Damn, I should be more patient before sending these things... something 
intelligible came out, I think!

I'm pulling this straight from the sky with a wide-open invitation to 
cut it up into little bits:

Quantum Physics is the attempt to understand the interaction-point 
between DQ and SQ. Quantum scenarios are most readily comprehensible 
near the extremes of our logical spectrum: micro-reality and 
macro-reality. This is due to us having heavily-padded patterns of SQ in 
the middle-range, making it more difficult to look through the SQ to 
catch a glimpse of the DQ barrier there.

Quantum probabilities and potentialities describe the likelihood of 
particular interaction-points where DQ can become SQ. The quantum 
observation "problem" is when we "force" DQ to latch to SQ, providing us 
a static value in one quantum-dimension but thereby eliminating the DQ 
potentiality in all others. When we "let go" of that SQ value, it 
returns to DQ and all the dimensional probabilities are once again 
active. The observation, the forcing of SQ, is a sort of "pause button" 
for DQ.

Okay, I promise I'll stop responding to myself, at least for today!

-Laird

Laird Bedore wrote:
> I found the intro link I was looking for. It's an attempt to describe 
> Hilbert space in terms a non-quantum-physicist can grasp. Despite the 
> title, it still requires a fairly strong command of mathematic principles.
>
> http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/hilberts.html
>
> After I read this the first time, I stared at the ceiling for quite some 
> time. As my imagination wandered, I got the sensation that some 
> 'crystallization' was taking place. First I was imagining the orthogonal 
> dimensions of Hilbert space unfolding into a 3D (euclidian) visual 
> representations, then further into nonlinear dimension morphing. 
> Excited, I tried to write down something describing my imaginings, but 
> nothing intelligible came out.
>
> The link is actually a portion of a larger quantum mechanics discussion 
> circa 1996 (http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq.html). It sounds really 
> interesting, but it's way over my head. I'm currently searching for a 
> normal-person-friendly definition of "quantum collapse", but it's 
> evading me. These Q-people are ruthless with their lingo!
>
> Skipping ahead to page 3 (http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq3.html) it 
> looks like they're discussing quantum interaction between ideas and the 
> physical brain. Lots of mention of William James too. My head hurts just 
> glancing over it, but it sounds intriguing. Anybody have any insight on 
> this stuff?
>
> -Laird
>
>
> Laird Bedore wrote:
>   
>>>> [Laird]
>>>> Yes... at some points I pictured you as sublimely "finger pointing 
>>>> at 
>>>> the moon", talking to others and passively hoping that they'd 
>>>> follow the 
>>>> direction of your finger and gaze on the moon. I could picture you 
>>>> eventually getting frustrated and impatient, saying "dude! look at 
>>>> the 
>>>> freakin' moon already!" That one got me laughing for quite a while!
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> Hi Laird,
>>>
>>> You may not be too far off. I did have an ulterior motive when joining 
>>> in on the conversation. When Ham was talking about consciousness, I 
>>> thought maybe we could delve into what consciousness is, and what it 
>>> means to be conscious, but it turned into a “Look at my Essence” 
>>> conversation where consciousness comes from somewhere outside. 
>>>
>>> The moon I might see would be where MOQ came from in my eyes, and that 
>>> would be from self-reflection. 
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> [Laird]
>> Wow, that's a little spooky. :)
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Chin) He has stopped talking to me twice now, and I don’t feel the 
>>> necessity to protect others here who have proven over the years well 
>>> capable of taking care of themselves, so I will just allow him to stay 
>>> in his own little world, with his own empirical truths. 
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> [Laird]
>> Plenty fair enough. We can have our own conversation and discuss our own 
>> emprical truths. :)
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>>> [Laird]
>>>> I think the problem isn't so much with the use of any particular 
>>>> word, 
>>>> but understanding the meaning as a continuum of values rather than 
>>>> a 
>>>> specific value. It's sort of like a sensor in a piece of lab 
>>>> equipment- 
>>>> the sensor gives you the value from within the range of 
>>>> possibilities, 
>>>> but is not itself _the_ value.
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> Chin) I was half-way kidding about using Areté as opposed to Quality. 
>>> Areté would have no meaning to modern man, but it seems some get tied 
>>> up in the simple definitions of Quality, like workmanship, which of 
>>> course misses the whole Essence (pun intended) of the word as Pirsig 
>>> uses it. 
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> [Laird]
>> Yeah, I agree. I kinda missed the point on that one!
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>>> [Laird]
>>>> No worries. If you can get the Blue Haired Ladies to have some fun 
>>>> with 
>>>> Morality then we'll really be getting somewhere! :)
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> [Chin]
>>> I’m afraid they had no fun, except probably feeling a little smug by 
>>> running me out of the church. It seems coming up with your own 
>>> interpretations of the Bible or as they called it “The Word” was not 
>>> allowed. I liked the stories in the Bible, and felt they had their own 
>>> little hidden meaning which might be defined as inner meaning for the 
>>> reader. I guess it is best to keep the word ‘Analogy’ limited in its 
>>> use to literature. ;o) 
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> [Laird]
>> The churchgoers do get awful literal at times. The few I've talked with 
>> who agreed with the analogy approach were very enlightening. One was a 
>> Catholic priest in his 70s. I had quite an active history in 
>> Christianity in my youth (catholic and protestant faiths), and despite 
>> my general dismissal of religion these days it was a great learning 
>> experience. I'm still trying to get my dad (who was in a Catholic 
>> seminary for 3 years) to discuss his (obviously present but well-hidden) 
>> dissent with the religion, but he's tight-lipped in order to keep my mom 
>> happy.
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> [Chin]
>>> This may get me in trouble here as well, as I saw ZMM as one man’s 
>>> trip into self-reflection, and how it lead to enlightenment. Lila was 
>>> just a continuance of this trip -- a trip into Quantum Physics, which 
>>> requires some understanding past what he has offered, but is that not 
>>> what DQ is all about? 
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> [Laird]
>> Now quantum physics would make a fantastic topic! It's extremely 
>> fascinating and perplexing, and I'd love to expand my grasp of the 
>> concepts. I'll change the subject line to Quantum Physics!
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> [Chin]
>>> A limited explanation of where Quality might mean could be found in 
>>> Lila;
>>> “The only difference between causation and the value is that the 
>>> word "cause" implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning 
>>> of "value" is one of preference. In classical science it was supposed 
>>> that the world always works in terms of absolute certainty and 
>>> that "cause" is the more appropriate word to describe it. But in 
>>> modern quantum physics all that is changed. Particles "prefer" to do 
>>> what they do. An individual particle is not absolutely committed to 
>>> one predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute cause is just 
>>> a very consistent pattern of preferences.” 
>>>
>>> I did delve a little deeper in the world of Quantum Physics, and feel 
>>> it helped me some to understand what Pirsig was talking about, and 
>>> quite possibly a better understanding of the world around us and our 
>>> relationship to it and each other. 
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> [Laird]
>> My "study" of quantum physics and mechanics consists of various articles 
>> I stumble upon when I have some free time at work. Not much at this 
>> point, but the more the merrier. There was a really great little intro 
>> into quantum mechanics I found one day. I'll have to find it again and 
>> post the link tomorrow though - I'm in desperate need of some sleep!
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> [Chin]
>>> I’ll shut up now, as I feel I have gone well out on a limb, but would 
>>> be willing and appreciative of any more discussion of any of this. 
>>> Don’t pull any punches as I do not feel I am ego-centric or 
>>> emotionally unstable. ;o) 
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> [Laird]
>> Is it okay to pull some punches if my knuckles are sore? :)
>>
>> -Laird
>>