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

[MarshaV]

Yes, we agree.  I can imagine Arlo's ears turning purple.  Haha  



On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:39 PM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:

> 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
> 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


 
___