Hello all
Struan:
Look at what Bohr
writes: (my additions in brackets) "The wave function describing a particle
constitutes a complete
description of that particle. Since the uncertainties (in our minds)
expressed by the wave function
are not resolved until the particle is observed (once we look at it we can
define it), the particles
can not be said ( = WE cannot say) to have any definite state (= WE cannot
define) until it is
observed. The observer is implicated in what he or she observes but although
he or she cannot
arbitrarily alter reality,(!!!) he or she can make a photon either a
particle or a wave. (by
observing it in a certain context - in the same way that I can make a 3D
cube on 2D paper appear as
if seen from above or below).
It is clear then that the, "Conceptually Unknown," has properties and is
real despite our not being
able to define them or it. When we observe it we choose to define it in
certain ways, just as I
choose to define this thing on my lap as a four legged animal, or as a cat,
or as a pet, or as a
Burmese, depending upon the context in which I find myself. I haven't
changed its nature in the
slightest and before I observed it, it was "Conceptually Unknown" to me -
but a cat nonetheless.
Glove:
Bohr was accused of subjective-ness with regard to his framework of
complementarity,
and while I am not sure where your quote comes from, I suspect it was made
in
rebuttal to those accusations.
What is not clear to me, however, is how the "conceptually unknown" can have
any
properties whatsoever until it is defined, and then it is no longer the
conceptually unknown and indeed never was. What Pirsig meant by his
"conceptually unknown" was not in the context you use it here, in my
opinion. Conceptually unknown means that we have no conception whatsoever of
the "it" that is unknown. This doesn't apply to the cat, to a room, or to
anything that we have formed agreements with prior to the observation.
The "Conceptually Unknown" as Pirsig intended was that which we cannot
conceive of in any fashion, such as like being able to hear radio waves or
see via x-rays. This is only an analogy since what Pirsig really means is
beyond any description at all.
But you are right in that this seems to be why Bohr never discussed anything
of the sort at all and refused to speculate on it.
This is where complementarity
comes into the picture.
Complementarity is not quantum mechanics and it is not the Copenhagen
Interpretation, although it has much to do with how both were formulated, it
is true.
I don't pretend to have any idea what I am talking about when it
comes to complementarity or quantum mechanics, which is what I remember
Pirsig admitting as well at the beginning of his Subjects, Objects, Data and
Values paper (which I for one found very thought provoking and stimulating,
btw) but I have done some little reading and pondering on the subject, so I
will try and tell you why I think you are wrong, for I sense you understand
it even less than me or Pirsig.
You first claim Pirsig built his thesis on the foundation of a
misunderstood idea and then sum up your arguement like this:
Struan:
To sum up, Schrodingers Cat will be whatever it is. If we want to find out
whether it is dead or
alive we look, then define our observations according to our criteria of
'deadness' or 'aliveness.'
It is as simple as that.
Glove:
Complementarity is all about defining observations. I see nothing of
complementarity in your summary statement at all. IF "Schrodinger's" cat is
to be considered at all, THEN a special constraining situation must be set
up BEFOREHAND incorporating both the observed and the observer[s] using a
"two-position" point of view, communicated in an unambiguous fashion.
What Pirsig calls a Quality Event can then be mapped. That is the essence of
the framework of complementarity and its connection with the Metaphysics of
Quality, in my opinion. Normally we do this so off-handedly that we don't
even notice what we are doing as we do it. We blend our reality into a
continous stream of existence. But in every observation we make, a sequence
of events occurs. Complementarity makes use of that same principle.
Complementarity may also be extended, in my opinion, into the Metaphysics of
Quality or visa versa, because they are both built on the same groundwork.
If one forms an understanding with complementarity, it will be seen that
everything is complementary to everything else. Complementarity does not
arise at the quantum level...it arises in our everyday reality and can be
tied to Value Force in the Metaphysics of Quality.
Although I am in disagreement with the way the experiment is set up, there
is a wonderful illustration of complementarity on Doug Renselles quantonics
website in the paper he just posted titled "A Half Century of Quantum Logic;
What Have We Learned?". Perhaps you could read it sometime and we can
compare thoughts on it if you wish.
Best wishes,
glove
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