LS Re: The Principle of Quality


clark (clark@netsites.net)
Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:00:08 +0100


----------
> From: Ant McWatt <ant11@liverpool.ac.uk>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: The Principle of Quality
> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 12:53 PM
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:50:55 +0000 Bodvar Skutvik
>
> > Hello Anthony McWatt are you listening in?. I have a vague
> > recollection that the question of a "goal" for existence was
> > answered by Robert Pirsig in a letter to you. That he said that he
> > had been confronted with the seeming paradox that Dynamic Quality was
> > both the source and the goal, but I am not able to remember what his
> > conclusion was, nor am I able to find the actual letter. Could you
> > please look into your files and see if there is something resembling
> > this?
> > Thanks.
> > Bo
> >
> Hello Bo,
>
> That Quote for you!
>
> "Hunting for weaknesses..." (in your paper) "I find that on
> page one, paragraph four, there is a sentence,
> 'Fundamentally Pirsig`s term is a MYSTIC one, and refers to
> the undifferentiated, indeterminate, reality from which the
> universe has evolved (or grown) from.' Although this is
> true at a Buddha`s level of understanding, it would be
> confusing and illogical in the world of everyday affairs to
> say that the world is evolving both from and toward the
> same thing. I have had some reader mail that has pointed
> out at one place I seem to imply that Quality and chaos are
> the same and at another that they are different, so I
> haven`t been clear on this myself and have left an opening
> to attack. To close it up, let us say that the universe is
> evolving from a condition of low quality (quantum forces
> only, no atoms, pre-big bang) toward a higher one (birds,
> trees, societies and thoughts) and that in a static sense
> (world of everyday affairs) these two are not the same."
>
> (letter from Robert Pirsig, March 29, 1997, the word
> "MYSTIC" originally in bold not capitals)
>
> Well, I hope that is some help.
>
> Another phrase of Pirsig`s, maybe someone familiar with
> physics such as Doug or Ken, could help me out with, is the
> following:
>
> "Atoms are created by the preference of quantum forces for
> certain stable relationships. These quantum forces are not
> objects of any kind. They are believed to have existed
> before the Big Bang and can be shown to exist today in
> absolute atomic vacuums. They are just patterns of
> prefence that appear out of what is called mass-energy.
> But if one asks what is this mass-energy independently of
> its preferences one finds oneself thinking of nothing
> whatsoever.
>
> (letter from Robert Pirsig, March 23, 1997)
>
> I am giving a paper on February 12th on the MOQ to the
> other post-grads so I would like to know if there are any
> physics books (or physicists) which would support the view
> expounded by Pirsig above.
>
> Any suggestions from anyone would be very much appreciated.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Anthony.
>
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Anthony,
  I have a book in front of me which discusses virtual particles and vacuum
density. It is, "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" by Timothy Ferris. It has
an index so that you can find the reference easily. It is also one of the
clearest popular books on these subjects that I have seen in many years of
reading. This book speaks generally about the subject but I have read other
authors (can't give you a reference right now) which assert that within the
Planck time and distance that particles physically come into and go out of
existence. The idea is that energy can be 'borrowed' within this short time
span from which to construct these particles without infringing on 'real'
particles energy requirements. According to this book, these laws set no
upper limit on the ceiling that a given vacuum might contain. I had not
seen this before but I think this is what Doug is talking about
  This is the idea of the Vacuum Genesis of the universe. It turns out that
the total energy content of any Quality Event (object) such as the Earth
is approximately equal to its gravitational potential as calculated via E =
McSquared. If this is true for the whole universe then the universe has no
net positive energy. That is, the universe could have come from nothing,
answering the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" All we
need is a first cause or singularity. The next time we get down and think
that we are nothing we will be right. Hope you can find this book. It is a
good read. Ken

"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the argument that life is
serious." Brendan Gill.

Doug, Found the article in science News. Thanks. I think there is something
that we don't know. Ken
 

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
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 - 16:42:39 CEST