[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Adrie,
Interesting post.  I don't quite get your certainty-uncertainty
devide, perhaps it is the same as the divide between quantum mechanics
and Newtonian physics.  Let me start by saying that the uncertainty
principle is a useful concept in physics to provide a structure to
what has been found.  I am not certain that such a concept works
outside of that arena.  I wonder how we would apply the necessary
maths to things such as Value and Morality.  I am aware that it is
being used in such a manner by many to explain things philosophicaly
relating to social phenomenon, but how would one divide the sum of
Morality and Value by the square root of negative two?  When I have
time, I will read your reference to the Certainty Principle, I like
those kinds of things.

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark.
>
> strange,i'v kept on reading your production here for some time.
> projected patterns of differentiation, fields of value derived from events
> lying between objects/subjects....strange, on the first sight probably it
> will have the look and feel of insignificance or unimportance, but it is
> not, on the contrary
> you seem to move in a field of science that lies between the
> uncertainty principle...and the certainty principle.Probably i do not have
> to guide
> anyone to the Uncertainty principle(Heisenberg), but the certaintyprinciple
> is lesser known, i will import a link here to a good pdf, (scanned, safe)
> concerning the certainty principle.
>
> http://daarb.narod.ru/tcp/tcpr-eng.pdf
>
> what especially took my attention in your production, is that you seem to
> understand that there is no further reason in pragmatism to maintain the
> subject/object conversation indefinite,...and exactly so in quantum
> physiks,subject/object differentiation means nothing and serves no purpose.
> A particle that is only observable by the traces it leaves behind, or the
> effects
> fails on the definition of object or subject, and as an example i can make
> the question,...is elektricity an object or a subject, Both at the same
> time, or non of these?.
> only if answered conclusive totally, it will move to object or subject
> definitions.

[Mark]
Yes, kind of... I am presenting a perspective where what we perceive
is what lies in between, not the subject or object.  You point to
language which embodies the subject object divide.  Language is very
powerful, and can create its own reality.
>
> Quote , Mark.
> So, my friends, look between (not subjects,
> not objects) and there is your answer.end.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Good, Good, Good,!...look between!....look between, pop-up the hood and
> observe differentiation,differentiation,..endless differentiation,
> "DYNAMICS"
> even and every observation is a differentiated pattern.ALL value's are to be
> framed and recognised between a beginning and an end, dynamic quality needs
> to be an event, all events have a beginning and an end,we need to observe
> and recognise the value's inbetween.

[Mark]
Yes, indeed.  Our realization of the difference is an event.
>
> Can you pay attention to the use of the term VALUE,dynamical state's and
> timeshift, ..?
>
> Maybe my question seems strange but i what you wrote i can see the
> congruence SQ/ DQ, certainty/uncertainty, value's inbetween all off this and
> moreover i'm able to see the congruence with your work on soft or sweet
> spots
> long time ago, i kept on analysing this work,and found good insights in it.

[Mark]
I will give it a read to see if it provides insight for me.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Quote Mark.
>  So it, theoretically (or is it
> metaphysically?), provides the differentiation between all the quarks
> and all the leptons.  From these differences comes all the other
> things which we experience as matter.  Thus, it could be said that
> lead and gold are ultimately differentiated by the Higgs Field.end.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Some remarks however.
>
> theoretically,...<=> try to import hypothetically in your mind.

[Mark]
I have no problem interchanging the words.  Perhaps hypothetically is better.
>
> Gold<=> lead,.....table of mendeleyev, yes , lead is gold that is decayed,..
> lead comes in 2 atomnbrs, ..All elements come from other elements as
> products of decay.See table of mendeleejev.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

[Mark]
The periodic table could be seen as a Quality table.  It is not the
elements that are important, it is how they differ.
>
> Same goes for energy and matter, according to Einstein, energy is matter and
> matter is energy, (E = MC 2).
> It is not a good idea to mess with this.

[Mark]
This simply states to me that all things could be equal but separated
by Quality.  Perhaps this is the Sameness that Ham is concerned with.
>
> I have some other remarks , but they can wait.
>
> About the uncertainty principle and the fact that i'm aware of your favor
> for analogy's, i will give you an analogy that represents the principle.
>
> Frame the crest of a wave in your mind , halt it in time, make a still of
> it.
> Frame the opposite image of the crest in your mind, the lower part, the dip
> in the flaw of the surface, the hollowing out of the surface before the
> crest comes,..
> halt it , make a still out of it in your mind,...and now merge them in a
> tought.
>
> Understand that in this frame, the crest and the declination cannot find
> themselves to be present at the same moment in time at the same place.
>
> The declination will always precede the crest, and the crest will always
> follow the declination.
> They cannot occur at the same moment in time at the same place.......
>
> This representation as an analogy is not only an analogy but a real
> manifestation

[Mark]
This could be created into a new thread:  Temporal Aspects of Quality.

> of the uncertainty-principle, the only difference is the 2 dview as the real
> principle is to be seen as oscillating in all directions at the same time.

[Mark]
Yes, analogies with multi-dimensionality.  That light is analogized by
a wave is interesting; always vacillating between a positive and
negative side.  It is that oscillation that provides Quality.  If
light were a flat line, everything would look the same.  It needs to
be dynamic, needs to always be changing.  It is not so much how high
and how low it goes (subject-object), but how it moves, and that it
has to move.
>
> so , concluding, sweet spot are very strong spots.
>
> have to go now.
> see you later .

[Mark]
Thanks for the reference.
Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2011/1/27 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Some of us like to tie ideas from physics into MoQ.  I know that
>> Pirsig does.  This post brings in the analogy of the Higgs Field.
>>
>> The Higgs Field was conceived of in the 1960's by none other than
>> Higgs.  The basic premise of such a field is that it creates and
>> differentiates between particles.  It can be seen as kind of a drag on
>> enery, slowing it down.  So it, theoretically (or is it
>> metaphysically?), provides the differentiation between all the quarks
>> and all the leptons.  From these differences comes all the other
>> things which we experience as matter.  Thus, it could be said that
>> lead and gold are ultimately differentiated by the Higgs Field.
>> Without such a field, all matter would be the same as energy.  It is
>> theorized that at very high temperatures, the Higgs Field disappears,
>> that is, that there is no difference, and no mass either.  In fact,
>> this is often used to describe the beginning of the universe, if such
>> a thing is imagined.  Now, how does the Higgs Field differentiate
>> matter?  Well that is supposed to be through the Higgs Particle, or
>> the Higgs Boson as it is called.  Because of its importance to
>> everything we see, such a particle is also called the God Particle.
>> Tthat is the metaphysics of physics, supported by math of course, and
>> colliders have been built to look for it, if the theory is still
>> favorable.
>>
>> So imagine, if you will, something called Quality.  It is through
>> Quality that things exist separately.  This Quality is what provides
>> all the qualitative differences between things.  By way of analogy,
>> Quality would be a field which creates the value between things.  If
>> all things were the same, there would be no Quality.  Quality is what
>> separates and differentiates.  The manner in which Quality interacts
>> with Sameness is what provides us with values and morals.  It is what
>> provides us with choices.  Therefore, one should not look at things as
>> having Quality.  Rather it is what separates those things that has the
>> Quality.  As a field, it is utterly dynamic, and leaves a static world
>> in its wake.  Such Quality has more existence than what it creates,
>> since it is the foundation of all.  The static world is a byproduct of
>> the movement of Quality.  So, my friends, look between (not subjects,
>> not objects) and there is your answer.
>>
>> 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
> 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
>