Jonathan and squad,
Thanks for your post, it helps to pass a boring Sunday.
First, let me say that the only thing that I know about relativity and
Quantum mechanics are the popular accounts I have read. Cut off one of my
fingers and you have created a serious impediment to my mathematical
abilities.
Having said that, I am not convinced that the instantaneous operation of
Quantum functions is not knowable. I agree that knowledgeable people are
unable reach hard and fast descriptions but if the Quantum theory were not
predictable then our universe could not exist. Our coffee pours into the
cup and tastes the same every morning. The toaster operates and the bread
looks and reacts the same. In my mind this means that the Quantum world is
producing similar results over time. It may well be that if we could make
enough measurements quickly enough we might be able to disrupt the smooth
operation of the physical world but that does not seem possible as of now.
If we wanted to have some influence on the state of Schroedinger's cat we
would have to measure the state of each atom of the cat all at the same
time.
My concept of the "Many Truths" idea has developed over a period of
months to a point that I am now pretty well satisfied with what Pirsig is
saying.
Jonathan writes:
The "many truths" should not be considered as "alternative truths" but
as complimentary viewpoints.
No single "truth" can encompass all of reality. It is just one
viewpoint, DQ collapsed into a SQ description. Furthermore, the
"context" of such a truth can only be defined by adding more axioms
(Goedel's theorem), which again says that it is incomplete. A more
comprehensive description of reality must assimilate multiple
viewpoints, thus expanding the contextual boundaries. This is endlessly
recursive; no individual or compound "truth" can ever provide an
absolute description of reality. Thus the *value* of any one viewpoint
becomes exactly that - its VALUE. IMHO this is ABSOLUTELY what MoQ is
all about.
Clark writes:
From the viewpoint of an observer the "Many Truths" would appear as
complementary viewpoints. From the viewpoint of each individual their "
Truth" would appear as a "Truth".
It is undoubtedly true that one single truth cannot provide an absolute
description of reality, but I think that this is exactly Pirsig's point,
and I think yours also.
As I read Pirsig he is saying that the "Many Truths", combined with the
interaction of dynamic and Static Quality will eventually lead us to a more
complete agreement on what constitutes value and morality. The tendency of
some 6 or 7 billion "Truths" will be toward greater value and morality and,
while we will never reach complete agreement our beliefs will tend to
cluster around a common point.
Pirsig has shown us an empirically based way to recognize value and
morality and a process that will lead us toward a common understanding.
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
Unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with
UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST