[MD] Quantum Physics

[Laird Bedore]

Hi David,

Despite seeing Quantronics mentioned here many times, I haven't yet, and 
I think I will this evening.

Thank you for your response earlier, by the way. I found some other 
definitions as well, and mashing them all together in my brain it's 
making sense. It's more or less what I assumed it meant when I first saw 
it, plus the possibility of quantum collapse as an "organic" kind of 
deterministic behavior that can happen on its own without us doing any 
measuring.

-Laird

David M wrote:
> Hi Laird
>
> That sounds good to me. Have you visited Quantronics?
>
> David M
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Laird Bedore" <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>