[MD] Quantum weirdness

[Case]

Craig,

Excellent points as always! 

You said, "But his new metaphysics does have repercussions on one's view of
cosmology."

I suppose it should change one's view but does it? Seems more like the kind
of effect Arlo showed us with experiments suggesting that our nervous
systems get really stoked when ideas resonate with our existing structures
of thought. Seems to me we are all pretty gifted at creating this kind of
resonance whether it is justified or not. The classic example of this would
be Christians interpreting the Big Bang as being described in Genesis. 

Certainly Pirsig invites a different way to see the world but is it really
different or do we each find in him a new justification for thinking what we
already thought?

A minor correction in your statement about the quote you offer. Pirsig does
get a bit full of himself at times but he has little to do with upending
classical physics. That was accomplished within the field during the first
half of the last century.

In fact much of the anti-scientific talk that gets bandied about seems more
appropriate to classical views than to current ideas in the area. "Cause" is
a prime example. In the classical game there was this quest for certainty.
If you could isolate cause and effect, you could really say something. 

Over the last century there arose more probabilistic views of causality. So
that if "this" then probably "that" or maybe "that" or who knows. This is
just my opinion, but it seems to me that saying that this "causes" that IS a
statement of probability. It says that if "this" happens "that" follows with
100% probability. For us materialists this means that matter is not what we
thought it was (corpuscles clinging together in lumps) and that a pretty
good guess is often as good as it gets.

I think Pirsig's language in the quote below and elsewhere lends itself to
misunderstanding. "Prefer" has the same kind of connotations to it that
"experience" does. This has been hammered to death in recent discussions
where the chief revelation turned out to be that it is in fact possible for
Arlo and me to disagree. However with the word "prefer" does not replace the
word "cause" in quantum physics. In quantum physics the word "cause" had
already been replaced by the word "probably". Skipping that step lends a bit
more importance to the term "prefer" than it deserves.

Seeing the world in terms of probability, chance, and uncertainty is very
disturbing. Physicists were revolted by it. Einstein, Bohr and Feynman all
have oft cited quotes reflecting their horror at the prospect.

I tend to think that with sufficient stretching, terms like preference and
experience can be applied to inorganic events. But I think it is misleading
to do so. To say that a photon "prefers" to be a particle for now, turns it
into an autonomous agent with feelings and desires of its own. But that is
my own "preference".

Pirsig clearly wants a purposeful world full of inherent Values. I am just
not sure that is what he gives us. 

Case

---------------------------------------

[Case] 
> Nowhere in Lila does Pirsig claim he is writing a work on cosmology.

But his new metaphysics does have repercussions on one's view of cosmology.

[Case]
> Nor does he claim to be upending the law of physics.

But he does claim to be upending classical science: 
"The only difference between causation and 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 [READ: DETERMINISM] 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. Therefore
when you strike cause from the language and substitute value you are not
only replac-ing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one; you
are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation."
(RMP, Lila, Chap. 8)