[MD] principle of complimentarity

[Ian Glendinning]

I agree with Bo.

Mark, Will, John, Marsha et al. The accepted wisdom of the "quantum
weirdness" - post copenhagen - is misguided- whether we're talking
complimentarity, uncertainty or many-worlds or whatever - "something
like that" as Mark / Will put it. A convenient intellectual model that
has infected a lot of minds, both "expert" and lay minds.

The weird / mystic connection is a clue, sure - and the "double-slit"
experiment nicely encapsulates the whole problem - but it doesn't lead
to the right intellectual conclusion for many people yet. The LHC
people are off down a very expensive (and dangerous) blind alley.

You need to get closer to the bleeding edge of fundamental physics
than 80 years ago, to see that there are better models in physics -
but the maths makes it hard to follow - unless you just ignore the
maths of course.

Ian

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> How was it again Mark, Will or ...?
>
> 31 July you wrote to Marsha:
>
>> Glad to see you are interested in quantum mechanics, Marsha.  It is
>> one route into the mystical.  To answer your question, the uncertainty
>> principle,  which is what you are asking about, arises out of the dual nature of m
>> atter. It is both a wave and a particle.  If you treat it like a particle (po
>> sition) you miss out on the momentum (wave), and visa versa.
>
>> If you take a snapshot of a runner, you have no idea how fast he is go
>> ing   from the picture.  If you are only measuring his speed  with a
>> radar, you have no way of knowing where he is from the reading on the
>> radar.  It's something like that,  although it can be made much more
>> complicated.
>
>> This and other quantum mechanical principles then go on to prove
>> that we create what we measure.  I have a feeling that all of this arr
>> ises out of a model in physics that is far from perfect.  But where
>> this model leads us philosophically is fascinating indeed!
>
> This may be valid from Intellect's (SOM's) point of view, but the fact
> that inorganic patterns become enigmatic when examined deep
> enough isn't solely attributed to that particular level, all levels merge
> with their parent (level) when one seeks their deepest roots, however
> as "inorgany" is the bottom level its roots are in the dynamic source
> itself and hence another SOM "platypus".
>
> The reason for this - as well as all SOM's platypuses - is that
> intellect's reality is confined to the subject/object (mind/matter) one -
> and when "matter" dissolves only mind is the left and conclusions like
> .."we create what we measure" and such silliness is the result. With
> the knowledge of MOQ's Dynamic/Static reality and its 4 static levels
> this ought to be no cause of wonder.
>
> This is a re-enactment of the Ptolemaian crystal spheres and semi-
> demi hemi circles dissolving in the light of the Copernican "out-in"
> turn of the cosmological sock  Now the MOQ has turned the
> metaphysical sock "in-out" and SOM's (intellect without knowledge of
> the MOQ) crystal spheres goes poof, but the fact that Will still finds
> this fascinating shows that he doesn't understand the first thing.
>
> But who wants a solution to mysteries? It reminds me of a film about
> a deadly virus stolen from a lab and the scientist pleading with the
> thieves "Please let me have my illness back"! My mystery is why
> Pirsig did NOT include Quantum Weirdness in the list of platypuses
> that the MOQ solves, but - alas - as always it springs from his
> fallacious intellectual level.
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>