[MD] Quantum Physics

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

[Laird]
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!

Hi Laird,

I wouldn’t even attempt it. 

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. 

The same micro particles which pass through us pass through all of us, 
the trees and the moon I point at ;),

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. 

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. 

So simple it almost sounds like a fairy tale, huh? 

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. 

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)

I know, such brilliance has probably left you speechless. I tried to 
tone it down some, but it’s hard to get something this complicated 
down to a Tenth Grade Level (most definitely pun intended;) 

To even try to understand the physicist would be more than I could 
accomplish in my wildest dreams. 

Will Rogers once said something to the nature of the most ignorant 
individual is an educated man outside the field in which he was 
educated. I may resemble that remark ;),

Chin


----- Original Message -----
From: Laird Bedore <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>
Date: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 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
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>