[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

118 aan moq_discuss
details weergeven 22:05 (50 minuten geleden)

Hi Dan

Since we've agreed to disagree, I would like to point out some
possible flaws in your thinking here, Ham. This subject-object world
isn't primary. It is not the source of our knowledge by any stretch of
the imagination. We have been trained to believe that a subject
observes objects and both are independent of one another, but it is
just training that makes it so. Quantum theory has shown that it is
impossible to measure an object without disturbing it... observer and
observed are linked... there is no independent observer.

Hi Dan,
Since you have invoked a link with physics, I would have to point out that
you do not have a good understanding of Quantum Theory.  Not all quantum
theorists would agree with the statement you make above.  It depends what
theory you are subscribing to.  So, a better way to put your statement is:
that Quantum theories suggest that observer and observed are intertwined.
 Be careful with your use of physics to support Quality, it can mislead the
public.  A reading on the current state of the art of quantum mechanics may
be appropriate.  It has grown since the days of Heisenberg.

Cheers,
Mark
----------------------------------------------------


(quote Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design)

According to quantum physiks,you cannot "just" observe something.
That is , quantum physiks recognizes that to make an observation,
you must interact with the object you are observing.

For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense,we shine a light on
it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it.
But shinig even a dim light on a tiny particle-
That is, shooting photons at it-does have an appreciable effect, and
experiments show that it changes the result of an experiment in just the way
that quantum physiks describes.
END-


So, reading your comment on Dan, i have to say, it sounds pretty arrogant to
take a position based upon some home-brew.

reading your interactions with Andre and Dan, i think i can honestly say,
Mark, that i'm under the strong impression that you are
fast cycling, ..are you getting bored with progress?
are you a fast cycler?
I don't really want an answer on this question, i already know it.

greetz, Adrie



2010/11/2 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>

> Hi Dan
>
> Since we've agreed to disagree, I would like to point out some
> possible flaws in your thinking here, Ham. This subject-object world
> isn't primary. It is not the source of our knowledge by any stretch of
> the imagination. We have been trained to believe that a subject
> observes objects and both are independent of one another, but it is
> just training that makes it so. Quantum theory has shown that it is
> impossible to measure an object without disturbing it... observer and
> observed are linked... there is no independent observer.
>
> Hi Dan,
> Since you have invoked a link with physics, I would have to point out that
> you do not have a good understanding of Quantum Theory.  Not all quantum
> theorists would agree with the statement you make above.  It depends what
> theory you are subscribing to.  So, a better way to put your statement is:
> that Quantum theories suggest that observer and observed are intertwined.
>  Be careful with your use of physics to support Quality, it can mislead the
> public.  A reading on the current state of the art of quantum mechanics may
> be appropriate.  It has grown since the days of Heisenberg.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 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
>



-- 
parser