LS Re: Before Static Quality


Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:07:25 +0100


Hi Hugo, Platt, Gene and TLS!

Hugo Fjelsted Alroe wrote:
> For one, his way of handling the Schodinger Cat paradox I find fallacious,
> a fallacy he shares with most who discuss that paradox (as always IMFO, In
> My Fallible Oppinion). And the fault lies exactly in the kind of
> subjectivist interpretation of QM that Merriam follow, in the idea that
> *our observation* or our mind has some crucial importance in the quantum
> collapse.
>
> SPPMOTNIIABS (someone please punch me on the nose if I am being stupid),

Something for the acronym list? ;-)

I agree and I'd like to tie some threads together at this. Platt stated
last week that:

"The Quality Event is not an interactive event but a
transformative event. It is the event at which the ultimate reality of the
world (Quality) is transformed:"

Then Gene disagreed and said:

"I would add not *only* an interactive event. It seems to me that every
transformation is a result of some interaction, but not every
interaction brings a transformation about."

I think what Platt said is very central to what MoQ is all about. When
it says that QE is a transformative event it says that there is no way
pure Quality can be captured. There is always a transformation between
Quality and the sensed data.

An interaction contains at least two actions, one called action and the
other called response. But both are QE:s, so, I'd say that every
interaction is the result of at least two transformations, not the
other way around.

MoQ also says that every QE results in one object and one subject. But
at this point, the SOM way of thinking is to say that the subject is
the more "advanced" of the two, i.e. the human is the subject and the
cat is the object, or, the instrument is the subject and the photon is
the object. The MoQ viewpoint is as Doug says the "many truths" one.
Either X-bject can be called the subject in any QE. Each QE contains two
truths, one resulting from one being selected as the subject, and one
resulting from the other being selected as the subject.

The "mind", whatever is left of it, is placed in the subject and has
nothing to do with what particular level it belongs to.

        Magnus

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:13 CEST