[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quant

[skutvik at online.no]

Adrie, All. 

15 July you wrote:

> As you know , my second nature is physiks, Quantum physiks to
> specify. The hard stuff, ..the main bird. when i'm into physiks, i
> live in the S/O bubble, it is very difficult for me to leave this
> bubble and to switch to Metaphysiks----, i can see the same pattern
> in Bo's line of thinking. 

No switch was necessarily between Newton physics and 
Subject/Object Metaphysics and SOM still ruled when Quantum 
Physics made its debut and only then did the discrepancy between
physics and metaphysics occur.  QP and SOM are incompatible.    

> It is very difficult to switch between two worlds. This is an issue
> where even Einstein,Bohr,Rosen,Podolsky went wrong.

Yes, even if Relativity isn't all "rational" it did not create the total break 
with SOM that Quantum Physics did so Einstein put down his foot, and 
worked out the thought experiment that would show that QM was 
rational, it was just some "hidden parameters" that made it so "occult". 
Much in the same way that technology is occult for a non-technology 
culture and stops to be once its inner workings are understood, but as 
you know Einstein was proved wrong, QP IS incompatible with 
rationality - with SOM - there are no hidden parameters.     

> The problem is this. If and when one is in the metaphysikal
> world,..-one cannot  give the correct answer to physikal questions.
> And---vice -versa. 

I don't think metaphysical and physics are principally at the odds, it's 
an old adage that the term metaphysics means something occult (the 
German "geistlichwissenschaft" trend) Pirsig has shown that rationality 
- SOM - is a metaphysics too. However, SOM and Quantum Physics is 
at odds, and so is SOM and the MOQ, and now the ... million $ 
question: Can the MOQ become the metaphysics which is compatible 
with Quantum physics? I think, yes.  

> This is the area, the playground of the interpretors. Bo is an
> interpretor. 

If you say so ;-)

> OKAY; some of his terms, weak interpretation, strong
> interpretation.some remarks. apparantly Bo is indeed aware of the
> existence of the weak interpretation of Quantum physiks, and
> attached to this interpretation the reflection in philosophy, hard
> interpretation versus soft interpretation. 

"Hard vs soft" ...OK, is just as good. 

> This interpretation exists. he is not wrong about this....and no, he
> is not reffering to weak electroforce versus strong electroforce.

Fine, that you got this "besserwisser" Ron off my back, thanks.

> The bridge between two worlds, the physikal world , the metaphysikal
> world. THE INTERPRETATION. 

Well, I'm happy if you are familiar with the Quantum quandary, but to 
this day no-one has found the bridge between the Quantum world and 
rationality (SOM). A couple of decades ago scientific magazines were 
full of this quandary, nowadays they have given up, even good old 
"Scientific American" mostly brings psychological "mind"-stuff.     

> Documents and essays, papers like this are hard to find , probably
> Bo has been reading this , and understood it remarkably well. Its
> difficult to explain , listers, i suggest to read  a paper like
> this, about the weak interpretation, and try to understand it. Just
> read over the formulas and equations, they do not matter for now.
> Just try to follow the line of interpretation. what i can see is
> that Bo's statement , the MOQ is an interpretation of the strong
> quantum physiks interpretation, ...is correct , it is. 

A bit cryptic this, but I believe the MOQ - and there is just the
strong MOQ - will be the metaphysics that "allows for" Quantum
physics.

> I can see four problems. Nobody in the list is aware of the weak nor
> the strong interpretation of Quantum physiks.(and the implications
> of it) Nobody is aware of the impact of the weak interpretation of
> quantumphysiks if and when applied on the moq (exept for Bo) Bo
> saves on his typing, takes to many shortcuts, he is not presenting
> this paper, and he should be.(but probably he is not having it).
> Only 1 % of the normal population can understand the models of
> Quantum physiks, but 99 % will think of themselves they do. 

If I understand this paragraph correctly you at least understand the 
Quantum Quandary, and - tongue in cheek - have hopes for the MOQ 
to remove it. I see it done by Quantum Physics copying the MOQ by 
making S/O physics a subset under itself - something only valid under 
the "static"  macro-conditions we humans think is normal.   

> So now the link for the weak/strong interpretation of the
> quantum physiks, (called by Bo strong interpretation of the moq,...
> he simply!!! transponded it.)

> http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/wqt.pdf

> Please take all time needed , listers , for trying to understand the
> paper (and see that bo is not insane), the MOQ needs the strong
> interpretation. do not  think , in any way, that i 'm saying that Bo
> is wright on other occasions.these i deny.i reject. NB, this is a
> must have goodie for DMB 

I don't have the Adobe Reader, can you make it into a Word 
document? (or are there diagrams and such?) .

Thanks Adrie.