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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Marsha, Craig, All::

Perhaps nowhere else is clinging to SOM shown to be so yesterday than in the 
discoveries of quantum physics. In looking down to find  the lowest "thing" 
that was at the bottom of the material world, scientists found there was 
nothing there, a no-thing-ness that mystics found centuries ago. Instead of 
dealing with this inexplicable phenomenon by changing their worldview of 
subjects observing objects, they have invented all sorts of  chimeras like 
Plank's constant and multiple universes to cover their you-know-whats.
       
I don't understand quantum physics either. But, I do understand it has proved 
the SOM premise of a fundamental subject/object separation is wrong. Result: 
SOM needs -- not an "extension" or new set of clothes as some suggest -- but a 
total replacement. 

Alfred North Whitehead, who Pirsig has acknowledged as an influence, said:

"The progress of science has now reached a turning point. The stable 
foundations of physics have broken up. The old foundations of scientific 
thought are becoming unintelligible. Time, space, matter, material, ether, 
electricity, mechanism, organism, configuration, structure, pattern, function, 
all require reinterpretation."

Enter the MOQ. 

Platt
 

On 16 Jul 2010 at 3:22, MarshaV wrote:


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    
>