[MD] squirrel

david buchanan dmbuchanan at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 22 07:16:32 PDT 2010 

Adrie:

You lost me there. I don't see how the squirrel story relates to physics and I don't really know what you're saying. Sorry.


dmb








> Comment Adrie,
> 
> I agree that Pirsig (several times)introduces Physiks and Physisists into both
> ZAM and LILA, sometimes only shining true in his thinkingpatterns, sometimes , however, very
> explicitly.
> 
> But of more importance,is the hidden impact of Local_ versus_non-local reality,
> 
> This local_versus_non-local reality, is, 1) of course  a reflection on relativity
>                                             Einstein is named in the same paragraph
>                                             and connected by context, content.
> 
>                                          2) making the congruence with Quantummechanics
>                                             as the NON_local reality or local reality itself
>                                             is not conflicting with,...relativity!!
>                                             is not conflicting with,...quantumphysiks
> 
> AND furthermore clearly, Both NON_local and local are not conflicting with Quality =reality, as 
> this remains , of course , this remains to be the "eventcovering"umbrella. LOCAL_REALITY is higher in hierargy
> as non_local reality=not observed
> 
> 
> This is the bridge between all worlds.multiple realitys.
> 
> This is where it can be found in LILA
> 
> Quote Pirsig
> 
> 
> James and a group of friends were on an outing somewhere and one of them
> chased the squirrel around a tree. The squirrel instinctively clung to the
> opposite side of the tree and moved so that as the man circled the tree the
> squirrel also circled it on the opposite side.
> After observing this, James and his friends engaged in a philosophic
> discussion of the question: Did the man go around the squirrel or didn't
> he? The group broke into two philosophical camps and Phædrus didn't
> remember how the argument was resolved. What impressed him was James'
> interest in the question. It showed that although James was no doubt an
> expert philosophologist (certainly he had to be to teach the stuff at
> Harvard) he was also a philosopher in the creative sense. A
> philosophologist would have been mildly contemptuous of such a discussion
> because it had no "importance," that is, no body of philosophical writings
> existed about it. But to a creative philosopher like James the question
> was like catnip.
> It had the smell of what it is that draws real philosophers into
> philosophy. Did the man go around the squirrel or didn't he? He was
> north, south, east and west of the squirrel, so he must have gone around
> it. Yet at no time had he ever gone to the back or to the side of the
> squirrel. That squirrel could say with absolute scientific certitude,
> "That man never got around me."
> Who is right? Is there more than one meaning of the word "around?" That's
> a surprise! That's like discovering more than one true system of geometry.
> How many meanings are there and which one is right?
> It seems as though the squirrel is using the term "around" in a way that is
> relative to itself but the man is using it in a way that is relative to an
> absolute point in space outside of the squirrel and himself. But if we
> drop the squirrel's relative point of view and we take the absolute fixed
> point of view, what are we letting ourselves in for? From a fixed point in
> space every human being on this planet goes around every other human being
> to the east or west of him once a day. The whole East River does a
> half-cartwheel over the Hudson each morning and another one under it each
> evening. Is this what we want to mean by "around?" If so, how useful is
> it? And if the squirrel's relative point of view is false, how useless is
> it?
> What emerges is that the word "around," which seems like one of the most
> clear and absolute and fixed terms in the universe suddenly turns out to be
> relative and subjective. What is "around" depends on who you are and what
> you're thinking about at the time you use it. The more you tug at it the
> more things start to unravel. One such philosophic tugger was Albert
> Einstein, who concluded that all time and space are relative to the
> observer.
> We are always in the position of that squirrel.
> 
> 
> Quote from "LILA"
> 
> comment Adrie
> 
> Mr Pirsig importing general relativity, multiple realities and especially,
> importing local---non local reality.
> 
> So , much of this abstraction can be found back in an article i was earlier mentioning
> and aswere i mentioned, that Pirsig's MOQ is in fact , truly a very strong interpretation of the weak 
> 
> Quantum interpretation, strange, Bodvar was very right about this.(only this), strange because it is 
> 
> the most difficult part of LILA.
> 
> This was the article
> 
> 
> http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/wqt.pdf
> 
> i will abstract , however , an important part from the intro
> 
> Complementarity and entanglement are notions which have become popular through
> the significance they received in quantum theory. Nevertheless they were and are
> applied in other fields, even beyond physics, as well. There are cases in which their
> purely physical meaning is naturally extended, in other cases they are used in ways
> making the connnection to physics hard, inscrutable, or even impossible.
> Applying complementarity and entanglement beyond physics, one is faced with
> three logical possibilities.
> . Within a strong reductionist approach, one would understand every kind of
> complementarity and entanglement as a manifestation of the quantum theoretical
> significance of those notions in an apparently different context.
> . Assuming that the formal scheme of ordinary quantum theory has realizations
> beyond physics, the application of complementarity and entanglement is
> possible by direct and complete analogy to ordinary quantum theory.
> . A weaker assumption is that a generalized version of the formal scheme of ordinary
> quantum theory, in which particular features of ordinary quantum theory
> are not contained, should be used in some non-physical contexts. If concepts
> like complementarity and entanglement can still be defined in such a generalized
> scheme, a generalization of those notions beyond physics is achieved.
> In this contribution we propose a formal way to define the concepts of complementarity
> and entanglement in the spirit of the third option. We do this in a manner
> allowing a stepwise relaxation of restricting conditions needed for their definition in
> the context of ordinary quantum physics. The main purpose of this approach is
> to sketch possibilities for applying the two notions in a less restricted, but equally
> precise way. As will be demonstrated, the intended areas of possible application beyond
> the scope of physics cannot be successfully addressed in terms of either of the
> first two options mentioned above. In other words, the attempt is to generalize the
> mathematical and conceptual framework of physical quantum theory in such a way
> that the generalized, weak version of the theory is still mathematically formulated,
> but no longer restricted to physics in its traditional scope.
> To be a bit more explicit, complementarity will be extended beyond the concept
> of non-commuting properties of a quantum system such as momentum and position
> as elements of a C*-algebra. Entanglement, which is tightly related to complementarity,
> will similarly be extended beyond the concept of (generally) non-local
> correlations (not interactions) between non-commuting properties of quantum systems.
> In particular, a formal framework will be outlined that might facilitate using
> the concepts of complementarity and entanglement in situations exceeding the limits
> of physics as a science of the material world. For instance, the significance of
> complementarity and entanglement could be explored in philosophical, psychologica
> 
> 
> """"OR PHILOSOPHYCAL PROBLEM AREAS."""  , emphasis is mine
> 
> 
> If somebody is reading the article , just disregard the formula's and equations.
> 
> 
> and in answer for the next question, ..in the timeframe Mr Pirsig wrote the book, the weak 
> 
> interpretation of quantumphysiks was the only option,most things are only proven after lila.
> 
> 
> So, how a squirrel can hide...
> 
> greetzz, DMb, thx for the example
> 
> Adrie
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list