Hej, (that's Swedish for Hi)
You wrote:
> Magnus: Einstein was always convinced of an objective world. He thought
that Bohr regarded
> observation as actually changing the reality of that objective world, so
his jibe about the moon was
> intended to refute Bohr by reducing his position to absurdity. After all
it is clear that, in a very
> real sense, the moon does exist when I turn my head from it. But Bohr was
not saying what Einstein
> thought he was. Bohr was simply saying that we don't know what exists
before we observe it so there
> is little point in talking about it because anything we say is pure
conjecture. He didn't deny the
> existence of pre-observation "Quality" (or whatever else we choose to call
it) and he didn't affirm
> it, believing instead that any discussion of it was pointless. Bohr
doesn't therefore fall into the
> dualism you describe.
Perhaps not, but isn't that because he refuses to go near the pit? Also, I'm
a bit uncertain
about the term "pre-observation Quality" you used. It sounds like you equate
pre-observation
Quality with the quantum function and that would be a shame since Quality
then would lose all
connection with morality.
> There is no opposition between existing and knowing something exists, in
fact
> they complement each other. Existing is the default state. Quality exists,
by definition. Knowing
> that something exists is merely the intellectual categorisation of
Quality. I don't see how you set
> them up in opposition in relation to Complementarity.
I don't think there's an opposition, but I can't make the connection without
the MoQ. Aren't you using the MoQ to save Complementary? Disregarding the
MoQ for
a moment, it means that first, there were only existence. Then something, or
someone, suddenly started knowing things!? How did that happen? Did Bohr
provide
an explanation for that?
> Although the MoQ insists that the moon does not exist as a moon (an
object) independent of
> observation, it nevertheless must surely agree that the patterns of value
which constitute what
> someone (or something) observing them would - were they to encounter each
other - recognise as the
> moon, actually exist in some real sense.
(The recursion depth of your average sentence approaches that of my old
German teacher. :)
No, existence requires a Quality Event, and a Quality Event requires both SQ
and DQ. I guess
what you're getting at is SQ, it is thanks to SQ that the moon looks pretty
much the same
each time you look at it. But I repeat, SQ isn't enough for anything to
exist. Quality is
reality (is morality, there it popped up again :), and Quality is made of SQ
and DQ.
> I suppose that in the sense of which everything can only
> exist in relation with (rather than 'to') something else you are correct,
but then I am correct too
> because if a meteor and a moon collide out of my knowledge, they both
still exist in a real way and
> that is outside of my observation which as far as I'm concerned could be
seen as outside of
> observation altogether.
Struan, give up the Descarte loop of "I think, therefore I am"! The realness
of you knowing
isn't superior to the realness of the meteor's up-close observation of the
moon. They're just
two kinds of value patterns, your intellectual knowing is more moral than
the inorganic
reaction of the meteor, but not more real. All kinds of value patterns can
be on the subject
side of a Quality Event, not just intellectual ones.
> Are we merely being defeated by language here or do you see some real
> difference on this issue? Your talk of moons and meteors observing each
other is surely just as
> liable to the critique in your 'BTW' as anything I've said about
observers, is it not?
Only if you consider the Quality Event to be a result of the moon and
meteor, subject and object.
Not if subjects and objects are the results of the Quality Event.
Magnus
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