Anders Nielsen (joshu@dis.dk)
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:15:04 +0100
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Doug Renselle wrote:
> > We might say that before it is measured it does not exist, as nothing
> > but pure dynamic quality (This might sound mystical...), but when we
> > measure it (give it value, it springs into existance as a inorganic
> > value pattern. This means that quantum scientists look at particles
> > that are formed from nothing(Some eastern philosophers says that the
> > universe is made of nothing)/quality into matter, and back again.
>
> Yes. Pirsig says this is essentially the same as the Quality event.
> >From Pirsig's EMM paper, "The Quality event is the cause of the subjects
> and objects...this Quality event corresponds to what Bohr means by
> observation."
Hello all...I'm new to this list.
Since this is my first posting, I'll just give you all a (very) short
rundown of who I am (so you'll know what to expect from me .. or not
:-).
My name is Anders Nielsen, I live in Denmark. I've
studied physics before, but I've become much more interested in
philosophy. I've taken some philosophy classes at the University
but I find them completely boring, so Im studying Computer Science
and Mathmatics now (while reading Philosophy in my spare time, and
trying to learn ancient greek :-) .. )
But let's get back to my letter:
1.
What Jimmy here seems to be doing is to try to interpret quantum
mechanics in a dynamic/static quality framework, in a somewhat
intuistic way. I can understand how one might be led to think that:
Dynamic Quality is a somewhat chaotic thing, something we cannot
grasp or get hold of.
How a Particle behaves before it's observed is also something
one cannot put a finger on.
So both are sort of "chaotic" (in a very very loose sense of the word).
But there is a difference.
You cannot think or talk about how the particles are
when they are "nonobserveable" (that is when they are in a state
about which there is no potential way of knowing anything about them,
not just the state they were in just before we observed them).
The difference between a particle being in a state that is such
that we have "no-potential-knowledge" of it, and merely being
in some state that changes when we observe it, is quite big.
I think there is a general misconception about this, and that is
probably
where the Schrodinger's cat "paradox" comes from...but that's not for
discussing here :-) (Im going to write an article or something about
that
later).
2.
About the short quote
"The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects...this
Quality
event corresponds to what Bohr means by observation"
Unfortuntely I have not read the whole paper from which this is taken,
but it seems to correspond somewhat with what my impression of the
quality event was. It is basically the same thought that all of
Phenomenology (Husserl,Ponty) builds on, that basic experience is the
foundation of all knowledge and that the world (the objects) and
the soul(subject) is really just different kinds patterns of
experience.
(This corrolates quite well with Quality as it's explained in ZMM,
and what you call the Quality Event...but how it relates to the 4
levels,
but how this relates to the 4 levels, I've yet to understand fully).
- Anders Nielsen (joshu@dis.dk)
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:26 CEST