[MD] Quantum Enigma

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha --

[Ham, previously]:
> When it comes to knowing something, there's nothing like experience!


[Marsha]:
> Yes, this is what I thought too.  Mary's knowledge (static patterns)
> is not comparable to her direct experience.  I do not know why
> Dennett was fearful.  Is intrinsic knowledge the boogyman?
> But I'm not the same kind of atheist as Daniel Dennett.  - So yes,
> I agree, there's nothing like experience!  But it's a huge unsolved
> problem for QP which some think may be pointing to something
> way beyond our present scientific understanding.  It seems quantum
> physics never fails to work as expected, so what is going on?

It is the Knower that makes knowledge "intrinsic".  Unknown knowledge, like 
unrealized value, is an oxymoron.  Conscious awareness is proprietary to the 
individual self, and consciousness is not a "distributable" commodity.

"Never fails" is giving too much credit to quantum physics, Marsha. 
Remember, Science operates on the principle that its conclusions can always 
be revised when warranted by contrary evidence.  Where empirical evidence is 
lacking or inaccessible, scientific conclusions are mere theories, just like 
the theories or doctrines of philosophy and religion which are not subject 
to retraction.

If you believe, as I do, that physical objects are valuistic constructs of 
the conscious mind, you can understand that there is a practical limit to 
experiential knowledge.  Quantum physicists today are exploring phenomena at 
or beyond this limit where particles cannot be distinguished from waves, 
velocity from position, etc.  In this submicron range, quantitative 
measurements are either impossible or meaningless. This data field should 
really be called "sub-quantum", in my opinion.

We should not expect Science to resolve the enigma of metaphysical reality 
because the solution is non-empirical -- not to be found in a study of 
things and events.  I don't know in what way your atheism is "a different 
kind" than Dennett's, but if you read D'Sousa's complete essay, you'll see 
that he divides the world of existence into "material stuff" and "mental 
stuff," much as Socrates and Descartes did.  Because existence is 
differentiated and diversified, we can only know it as "otherness".  But 
Absolute Reality (i.e., the primary source) "knows no otherness."

Therefore, unless you can accept two different realities, existence must be 
a transitory phase or mode of an "ultimate source" which some call God and I 
call Essence.  Is Essence an atheistic concept?  You'll have to judge this 
for yourself.  Speaking personally, I've found the philosophy of Essence far 
more meaningful and fulfilling than a belief system that reduces reality to 
disinterested interrelated patterns of an aesthetic nature.  That's my 
"conclusion", and in nearly eight decades of life on this planet I've seen 
no evidence or logic from scientists or philosphers that disproves my 
hypothesis.

But life is a mystery that each of us must resolve in our own way. 
Otherwise, what would be the point of it?

Essentially yours,
Ham