[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks

[MarshaV]

Adrie, Craig,  

I love it when they tell you that if you think you understand it, you don't.  It is 
also sometimes stated that it beyond rationality, or that our language, which
has developed with our Aristotelian/Cartesian point-of-view, is contrary to 
Quantum  understanding.  

There is one explanation that has me puzzled; it's Plank's constant.  Most 
of the lectures I've listened to have been for non-scientists.  Oh-oh!  In one 
lecture, granted it was on the 1990's science wars rather than QP, it was 
stated clearly that Plank's constant was chosen and adopted for use to get 
rid of an anomaly (either infinity or zero).  It was explained that it is sufficiently 
small as not to have a significant impact on the equation while still preventing
the anomaly.  Wow!  That's like art.   

Most of the QP lectures were presented in a very absolute way.  For 
instance to paraphrase one professor "this calculation for spin is not just 
mathematics; it is real."  What conclusion am I to leap to from that statement?  
I do not really understand QP, but I love it nonetheless because it is pointing 
beyond a subject/object world-view.  I didn't understand much of the article, 
but sensed it was pointing to something of quality.  

Thanks Adrie, I keep trying...   


Marsha





On Jul 15, 2010, at 9:31 PM, craigerb at comcast.net wrote:

> 
> [Adrie]
> How would you compare "Weak Quantum Theory: Complementarity and Entanglement
> in Physics and Beyond" to Pirsig's SODV
> (http://www.quantonics.com/Pirsigs_SODV.html)?
> .
> "Even though the isolation of parts of reality is expected to be a problematic operation, its possibility, at least in some approximate sense, is the prerequisite for any act of cognition and, in fact, already implicit in the epistemic split between subjects and objects of cognition."
> ("Weak Quantum Theory: Complementarity and Entanglement in Physics and Beyond",
> p. 11)
> 
> Explanations of Reality should be so simple a child could
> understand them. (Pirsig)
> 
> "This is so simple even a child could understand it.  Go out and
> get me a child--I can't make heads or tails of it." (Marx)Craig    
> 
> 


 
___