LS Re: MOQ puzzles


Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 02:49:37 +0100


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason Gaedtke [SMTP:jgaedtke@scitele.com]
>
>I do believe that a definite distinction can be made between atomic and
>subatomic phenomena. According to my second-hand interpretation, atomic
>phenomena are for the most part static, observable, and measurable. Atoms
>do not spontaneously appear and disappear. They do not exhibit
>wave/particle duality. They are not spontaneously created and destroyed
>(at least not under the conditions that we are most familiar with -- that
>is, standard atmospheric temperatures and pressures). (These general
>statements exclude radioactive elements, which do in fact spontaneously
>decay.)
>
>The very essence of subatomic patterns, conversely, involve a constant
>interplay between existence and nonexistence, creation and destruction,
>being and becoming. Dynamic Quality (a.k.a. "The Quality Event,"
>measurement, experience, observation, etc.) plays a vital role here. Prior
>to this Event, a subatomic pattern of value does not exist. The closest we
>can come to describing what is taking place here is to say that such a
>pattern is dynamically created out of an elusive "vacuum" of potential.
> (The concept underlying the "vacuum" here does not lend itself well to
>verbal interpretation. It is incorrect to say that the vacuum is nothing
>-- since it contains within itself the potential for all things. It is
>also incorrect to say that it is anything -- since it possesses no
>distinguishing characteristics prior to the moment of the Quality Event.)
>
>Another interpretation could be a very close analogy to
>the interplay between the organic and inorganic levels.
>
>Inorganic patterns suddenly becomes organic, (a cell is created).
> =>
>Quantum flux suddenly becomes a particle.
>
>and
>
>organic patterns suddenly becomes inorganic, (the cell dies).
> =>
>The particle disappears.
>
>The only difference is that we are not able to detect
>quantum flux, maybe because it according to SOM is a
>non-object?
>
>
>If Danah Zohar's theory that Bose-Einstein condensates underlie all
>conscious experience is someday tested and confirmed to be true -- the
>likelihood of which is entirely indeterminate at this point -- then we
>shall have a hard time producing Magnus's coveted AI if the unique
>characteristics of Quantum-level phenomena are ignored or classified
>together with other inorganic patterns.
>
You pessimist! ;-) Anyway, Danah Zohar is new to me,
do you have any links?
>
> Magnus

--
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 - 16:41:55 CEST