[MD] BioCentrism: Was Zeno correct?

Fri Nov 5 14:30:40 PDT 2010

MARSHA introducing Zeno in the postings.

An experiment published in 1990 suggests that Zeno was right. In

this experiment, scientists demonstrated the quantum equivalent of

the adage that "a watched pot doesn't boil." This behavior, the

"quantum Zeno effect," turns out to be a function of observation.

"It seems,"said physicist Peter Coveney, "that the act of looking at

an atom prevents it from changing". Theoretically, if a nuclear bomb

were watched intently enough -- that is, if you could check its

atoms every million trillionth of a second -- it wouldn't explode.

Bizarre? The problem lies not in the experiments but in our way of

thinking about time. Biocentrism is the only comprehensible way to

explain these results, which are only "weird" in the context of the

existing paradigm.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/is-death-the-end-new-

expe_b_774814.html?view=print.END

Mark commenting on it

118
 aan moq_discuss

details weergeven 16:13 (6 uren geleden)

Hi Marsha,
I am not much of a Huffington reader.  But this does seem to bring

up the
paradoxes coming from quantum mechanics.  Because they are

paradoxes, they
are interesting, but may just point to the circular referencing of

knowledge
and the pitfalls one can run into using logic.  Physics is not

different in
this respect.  At such times, one can simply revert back to the

intuitive
and dispel what logic or math tell us.  Such quandaries also result

from
quantum vector collapse.  Logical statements may be misleading and

perhaps
aberrations of the method of analysis or description.  As such, the
intellectual level has its own faults.  It is interesting to

consider why
they arise, what is the root of such paradoxes?  Whether it be Zeno

or
Coveney, both are descriptions created by the human mind.  Where is

the
defect?

Cheers,
Mark

Marsha again,..
Hi Mark,

I believe the root of the paradoxes is thinking reality is made up

of a self
and independent, external objects.  The 'self' is a particularly

thorny problem,
and one very difficult to overcome.  For me, it is the detaching

from the SOM
illusion that is the key.  imho

Marsha

---------------------------------------------------------------
(Adrie)
about the illusion and the defect

Mc Watt quoting Mr Pirsig commenting Parmenides and "Zeno"

quote (MOQ and time)-Mc Watt

>From the standpoint of contemporary physics, the Parmendians [sic]

were right to claim a distinction between appearance and reality but

wrong in their claim where the illusion lies.  What is illusory is

constancy, not change.  (Di Santo & Steele, 1990, p.160)

Clark (1999) argues that Parmenides’ theory concerning change could

be an absolute truth (having the same ontological status as a

Platonic form): ‘If true, always true’ and, therefore, existing

before Parmenides discovered it.  However, there still was change in

Parmenides conscious mind from not having the theory (that change is

illusory) to having this theory.  Moreover, it appears that

Parmenides is conflating a description of reality (i.e. being) that

by definition can’t cease to exist with reality itself and is,

therefore, begging the question in the first place.

On the other hand, from the Dynamic sense of the MOQ, Parmenides is,

strictly speaking, correct as the concept of ‘change’ is an

abstraction from Dynamic Quality and, therefore, (as with anything

abstracted) doesn’t exist in an absolute sense.   Possibly, the

koan-like theories of Parmenides and "Zeno" indicate (and they may

have shared similar thinking to Zen masters for such verbal

conundrums) ""the error of assigning absolute truth to a static

concept when reality is fundamentally dynamic. ""

"", "" In the last sentence is mine.(partially), nothing else is

changed.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Pirsig is rejecting this Parmenides-Zeno koan-like occult reality.
Marsha and Mark are trying to launch it back in.
Backpeddling to the caves?

This material is based upon the case's evidence.
ps. Mc Watt is quoting HAWKING a zillion times on his page.
http://robertpirsig.org/MOQTime.htm   see for yourself

greetzz, Adrie.

2010/11/5 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>

>
>
>
> An experiment published in 1990 suggests that Zeno was right. In this
> experiment, scientists demonstrated the quantum equivalent of the adage that
> "a watched pot doesn't boil." This behavior, the "quantum Zeno effect,"
> turns out to be a function of observation. "It seems,"said physicist Peter
> Coveney, "that the act of looking at an atom prevents it from changing".
> Theoretically, if a nuclear bomb were watched intently enough -- that is, if
> you could check its atoms every million trillionth of a second -- it
> wouldn't explode. Bizarre? The problem lies not in the experiments but in
> our way of thinking about time. Biocentrism is the only comprehensible way
> to explain these results, which are only "weird" in the context of the
> existing paradigm.
>
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/is-death-the-end-new-expe_b_774814.html?view=print
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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