>Hi Bo, Magnus, David, Roger and LS:
>
>Every once in awhile (sadly, not often enough) a post arrives that marks
>a milestone in the history of the Lila Squad. Such IMHO was Bo's post of
>Jan. 29, 1999 which included not only Bo's perceptive comments but the
>repetition of key paragraphs from Magnus and David that bear repeating:
>
>> MAGNUS wrote:
>> > This is where the MoQ parts with Bohr. The MoQ says that the moon
>> > does not exist independent of observation. The observer however,
>> > doesn't have to be a person, or an instrument made by man. It can
>> > be any static pattern. The moon is very real to a meteor coming too
>> > close, it makes the meteor stop quite abruptly.
>> > A Quality Event is not exactly the same as a quantum event. A
>> > Quality Event can be of four distinct types (guess which :),
>> > whereas a quantum event only translates to inorganic Quality
>> > Events.
>
>BO wrote:
>> You made my day Magnus. Finally a solid MOQ-based statement. The
>> renewed quantum physics debate; Roger airing Schrödinger's cat, the
>> Einstein-Bohr moon observation etc, seemed to end in the stale
>> classical standpoints of idealism and materialism, but then you
>> wielded the MOQ knife. Great!
>
>Yes, Magnus not only wielded the MOQ knife with precision in the
>paragraph above, but also in the following paragraph from another post
>he addressed to Lithien dated Jan. 29, 1999:
>
>MAGNUS wrote:
>"If observation means 'someONE observing something else,' there is a
>problem. Because then, the reality for that someONE becomes only the
>things that someONE observes. But if observation means "two patterns of
>value engaged in a Quality Event," then the ice falling off the edges of
the
>Antarctic glacier a few seconds ago becomes as real as your reading
>these words."
>
>Those seeking to understand the MOQ revolution would do well to ponder
>what Magnus's knife has revealed about "observation."
Glove:
I guess I have a rather silly question, but how would we know "something"
happens if we don't experience it in some way? Be it actual observation or
communicated observation of another, how would we know? A meteor striking
the moon is indeed an event, but if it is not observed by anyone, how would
we even know it happened? Observing the crater is an observation, so thats
out. How do you know something happens without observing it or being told of
its occurence?
Bodvar brought up the tree falling in the forest again, which I remember we
discussed months ago. The whole idea behind the koan is to realize sound is
experiential. This is an enormously enlightening notion to come to
realization of. Either we hear the sound, or a sound is communicated to us
in an unambiguous way, or there is no experiential event known as sound.
There is no Quality Event without experience. If there is no experiencer, no
observer, there is no experience.
There is no way around this that I can see, and the Metaphysics of Quality
does not offer an answer that I have found as yet, unless we conveniently
ignore the nature of reality.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Best wishes
glove
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST