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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Marsha,

Exactly. That's why Pirsig compared the MOQ to the Copernican revolution that 
brought about a complete change of reality, the sun replacing the earth as the 
center of the universe. We are still feeling the reverberations from that 
cataclysmic shift of reality. 

We agree..

Platt  



On 16 Jul 2010 at 12:22, MarshaV wrote:



Hi Platt, 

Yes, you seem correct to my way of thinking.  I don't see how it can 
be otherwise.  The MoQ is a shift in world-view so great in difference 
from the SOM world-view that it makes the split between social and 
intellectual levels dwarf in comparison.  

I agree with you.  



Marsha






On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:19 AM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:

> 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    
>> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___
 

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/md/archives.html