Diana,
Let me start by complimenting you again. You challenge us to go new
directions and start the quantum thread, then you question underlying
assumptions and bring us full circle to this month's program--the definition
of DQ. Brilliant job!
First, I am not trained in rhetoric, logic or philosophy......as I am sure it
shows......so I don't know if I can prove much of anything. But before I
progress I need you to clarify what you want me to justify. Is it that:
1)Experience is dynamic as opposed to static?Or that
2)Static patterns of quality depend upon DQ? That without the Dynamic there is
nothing? Or that
3)Static patterns of Quality are like maps of the terrain ?
I do share all three assumptions and will gladly re-examine why . However I
don't see these as essential to the argument that MOQ is a superior
description of quantum reality than is SOM. MOQ is broader and it goes
deeper. Even if I could comprehend "static experience", or could envision SQ
without DQ, it doesn't negate that the MOQ is a better description of reality
than SOM.
The critical element is that quantum physicists have gone beyond what they
define as "things". But SOM physics can't go beyond objects because they see
it as going beyond objectivity. You are right that I assume Bohr's
"Conceptually Unknown" is DQ, but whether it is DQ or just Q, the argument
still works.
Let me know your thoughts or further insights.
BE Good
Roger
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST