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

[Mary]

Well put, Marsha and Platt!  

> 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