[MD] BioCentrism: Was Zeno correct?

[118]

Hi Adrie,
I think we agree on this one.  Backpedaling is not always bad, if we have
traveled up the wrong path and need to go back to the fork.  By the way, is
there constancy in change?  You are familiar with calculus I think.
Mark



>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> (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
> 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
>