LS Re: Catches


peter@pzw1.resnet.cornell.edu
Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:51:45 +0100


Hello everyone,

This is my first post in a long while, mainly because I have been somewhat
"out of the loop" since returning from Winter Break. However, I feel that
perhaps now I might join in the fray... No doubt this thread will
generate a lot of responses, so I would like my $.02 to be heard
before the real messages start flying... :)

Diana has a very good point here. It seems, from skimming the past
several hundred posts (my mailbox says 293), that there has been a
proliferation of the letters S,Q,D,i, and M all over the place, to
describe vague connections between Quantum Mechanics interpretations no
one really understands to aspects of Quality which had not been thoroughly
understood. There are several pitfalls here.

First is the big pitfall of Quantum Mechanics. From what I gather, QM is
primarily being used as the banner of the Metaphysics of Quality because
its most accepted interpretation holds that the world at the atomic level
is indeterminate, and thus provides - if not evidence, at least room - for
a some sort of Dynamic mechanism at the inorganic level. If this is not
even close, then *please* correct me. The pitfall is not so much the
desire to tie QM into the principles of Quality, but more in the actual
latching process. The problem is the different levels of incomprehension
of Quantum Mechanics. On the one hand, physicists who have truly studied
the quantum theory will tell you that "no one really understands quantum
mechanics." On the other hand, laymen (read: non-physics-degree
intelligencia :) reading popularized books on "weird science" will not
always readily understand the quantum mechanics, and will tell you the
exact same thing. But the meanings are worlds apart. The problem with
the latching process, from what I have seen, is that it's easy for people
from the latter category to take what they don't understand about QM, tie
it up in a bundle, and try to stuff it onto the Quality bandwagon somehow.
Though fun and gratifying work, it is somewhat of a futile endeavour. The
real mystery of Quantum Mechanics is simple. In the words of Feynman,
"All the mystery of Quantum Mechanics lies in the double-slit experiment."
No mention of non-locality, of temporal distortion, of uncertainty
principles, etc. Nothing but the double-slit experiment. But I digress,
the cautionary bell I'm trying to ring is that before we get too psyched
about all sorts of "possible" manisfestations of QM in the principles of
Quality, perhaps we should spend more time lingering purely in the high
country. This is often much more fruitful and (arguably) more fun. If
incorporating QM into MoQ is like wrestling a bull, then leave it alone,
wait for an epiphany, etc.

A second pitfall is the straying from the middle path. I found myself
trying to convince a good friend of mine (also a physics major who is
swaying towards studying quantum mech. like me) that the Metaphysics of
Quality kills platypi of Subject Object Metaphysics and that it is quite
worth his time to read _Lila_. In the process of trying to convince him I
found myself at a loss for a concise and simple explanation of the
metaphysics of quality. This is mainly due to my lack of familiarity with
the subject matter, but nonetheless I found myself wishing for the
"principles of quality" which was being worked on here. This is, IMHO,
the demand that we are trying to supply - we need to be able to concisely
present a solid, well-grounded overview of the Metaphysics of Quality to
the curious. Alluding to various authors and quoting certain other texts
is just great, but when you're talking to someone after class you don't
have that, all you have is the analogy of the computer and the novel, the
dichotomy of mind and matter, and the example of the chemistry professor.
Perhaps we should focus our energies on expanding this knowledge base?

Third, and last, pitfall is the complexity issue which Diana has brought
up. As somewhat of an idealist, perhaps I am biased in saying that
beautiful theories are concise, but in my experience it has usually been
so. The Metaphysics of Quality is alrady concise - four static levels,
each making dynamic leaps towards the next higher, the highest level
reaching for pure Dynamic Quality. What we need to do is come up with
evidence for this, and more examples of how this metaphysics provides a
much cleaner basis for analysis of reality (ethics, morality, etc.) than
the subject-object metaphysics.

Also, perhaps all this obsession with quantum mechanics is unjustified, as
well. Even if the world were entirely "deterministic", things like chaos
theory and highly nonlinear dynamical systems would be evidence that you
can't *really* determine the final state of a system, even if you wanted
to, if you are limited to some finite accuracy on the starting points. So
even from a purely "classical" mechanics point of view, a deterministic
model is inappropriate.

Anyways, this is being written late at night/early in the morning, so some
of it may not make perfect clear sense. In short, I am simply cheering on
Diana's suggestion with great vigor, and trying to subtly express my
desire to argue *philosophical* points, not fringe physics ones. :)

Peter

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Diana McPartlin wrote:

> > Good advice But as we discovered in thrashing out the Principles, trying
> > to attain simplicity often requires a great deal of preliminary complexity.
>
> Sure, that's why I waited till you'd reached your conclusion. Had you
> reached an elegant solution then the prelimary complexity would have
> been justified. However you reached an ungainly solution, that's what I
> object to.
>
> Also, the fact that we are all coming from different backgrounds makes
> it even more imperative that everything is as clear as possible. That
> means taking one step at a time. Using everyday language. Stopping to
> make sure everyone understands before going forward. Backing up
> everything you say with reason and evidence. Is that really too much to
> ask?
>
>
> Diana

--
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 - 16:42:47 CEST