[MD] Question?

[markhsmit]

On Mar 8, 2009, at 9:17:52 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
Platt,
Interesting comment, when I think of chance in this capacity
I think that chance is limited by the form it takes, therefore
it is not totally random per-say but guided on the contigent of the form
it manifests in, the form it manifests in being contingent on limited
possibility of chance.

Physicists have noted how particles oscillate into and out of existence,
anomaloies of a field.

-Ron




________________________________
From: Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2009 8:36:45 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Question?


> Greetings!
> 
> I am wondering what is the relationship between Quantum Theory and 
> the Theory of Evolution.  Are they both science?  Is there a 
> particular ontological assumption underlying each that is the 
> same?  Different?
> 
> It would be okay to tell me my questions make no sense whatsoever
> because...

> Marsha

Hey Marsha,

Both quantum theory and evolution depend on the assumption that chance
has creative power. Compare to the MOQ assumption that DQ has creative 
power, or to the theist's assumption that God has creative power.

Platt




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/



      
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/
Hi Marsha,

Obviously a complex subject, since each is broken down into so many labels.

It is difficult to apply the theory of evolution to quantum mechanics.  It may be easier to try to explain evolution using quantum mechanics but that also takes leaps of faith, in my view.  Evolution is an explanation of structural biology as an interaction between what we call life, and nature.  As they are both nature and presumably have the same rules, it is a dynamic self-interaction, no different from all other dynamic interactions (DQ/SQ?).  Chance (whatever that means) has been used to describe this interaction in the same sense that all collisions of atoms in a gas are by chance (or are they?).  Indeed, it is all so complex, that it can be described by chance, in the same way that many things in physics can be described by Newtonian Mechanics (like the earth going around the sun (or does it?)), ignoring the Quantum roots.  

The interesting thing is particles appear and disappear (at least to us), as predicted and experimentally verified.  Alan Watts has described this as analogous to a tapestry or quilt.  The threads go over and under, when they are under we can't see them.  However both the over and under are required for the reality of the quilt.  Chance (as can be described through statistics) is a funny thing, because for example, if flipping a coin is a matter of chance, then you have to assume that the person flipping the coin is outside the system and independent; that is, has no impact on the outcome.  I'm not sure who is outside the system of Quality, flipping the coin.

Oh, the paper from Surrey, seemed like a lot of hand-waving, but I did not look at the references.

Regards,

Willblake2

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