Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:38:36 +0100
Hugo wrote (Nov.6):
> Well, I see my ideas on this as very un-SOM-causation-like! :-) What makes
> you consider them causation-like? To me the causal is everything that
> lasts, causality only considers the static patterns of nature. And hence
> there has been much debate on how new things can become in a world of
> causality, emergence and so on, - and on the interpretation of the quantum
> collaps. Apart from QM it seems like any event can be given a causal
> explanation, yet we have this definite feeling that something is missing
> from this mechanistic picture - when and where do the new arise?
> I find the simple answer in MoQ and Aristotles potency-act distinction. The
> actualization of potentiality, the quality event, is the answer,.....etc
The reason it sounded causation-like to me was mainly because you
and Martin Stritz discussed what caused the singularity to expand
into a universe, but that was perhaps on Martin's side.
MOQ and Aristotle!. Two very odd partners I must say. Phaedrus of
ZMM saw Socrates and Platon as the villains who had created the
foundation for the coming Subject/Object Metaphysics, and Aristotle
as the eternal mechanic who had worked it out in detail. As I
see the sentence "B values precondition A" means exactly what it
says: What brought Newton's apple to let go of the tree is the same
"process" that brought the material universe to emerge.
Well then, did our "potential world" - along with countless other -
scan the various conditions (from a pre-big-bang abode) and
decide what it liked? This sounds like the "many world's
interpretation of Qunatum Physics if you look upon it with the
SOM-loaded language, but with the quality "precondition" accepted,
that way of asking does not apply.
There are moments when I become a little scared of what Pirsig has
released. He says the quality version of physics won't change the
settings of any scientific measuring apparatus, but will it be a
motivation for doing research in a MOQ steeped culture? Isn't
science built upon the notion of a detached subject viewing objective
reality? Phaedrus of ZMM found that there are an unlimited number of
theories that fit ANY observation (the implication of this is
sobering), and Phćdrus of LILA says that science is just as
value-dependent as anything else (science abhors 'value'
as you know. Its even worse than 'purpose'). Well, who is there to
answer. ("Som man roper i skogen fâr man svar!" - heter det pâ
norsk)
You mentioned the "...quantum collapse..." as one of example of how
new things can come into existence. The SOM forces one to look for
the miraculous and for people who don't want their
scientific-rational reputation damaged, Quantum Mech. is a safe
haven. Here the miraculous is juxstaposed with the rational. I am not
saying that this is your position, but look: The other day there was
a new essay in the "Metaphysical Review" (free subscription
at:<mpr@improv.sr.unh.edu> Paul Merriam: "On the Relativity of
Quantum Superpositions". After a lot of inscrutable mathematics it
concludes:
"And yet nothing in orthodox quantum mechanics refers to size,
complexity or CONSCIOUSNESS.This means, if we take the formalism of
QM at face value, there is no "ontological" difference between an
experimenter and an electron so far as superpositions are
concerned. There is nothing in principle to prevent one from applying
QM "to the experimenter from the point of view of the electron" in
the same way we have just applied QM to the electron from the point
of view of the experimenter. What I mean is instead of
regarding the experimenter/laboratory as collapsed (in a definite
state) and the (non interaction) electron as being in a
superposition state, there is nothing in the formalism of QM itself
to prevent us from regarding the electron as being in a
definite state and the experimenter/lab. as being in a superposition
state". (my uppercase letters)
See, even the QM's "collapse of the superpositioned
possibilities" needn't be the exotic event where the
material (causation) world is created by interaction with mind.
We, in the macro world, are just as mysterious seen from the
quantum world's side! I recall an early letter of mine to TLS about
MOQ as the "mother of all relativity" (see below). I find it
affirmed by Paul Merriam's essay.
The randomness examples of yours show that Substance metaphysics not
only have problems in in its interpretation of Quantum events,
even "ordinary causation" is beyond its range.
Bo
(from my "Mother of all relativity" (Sep 15 1997)
......"However, relativity seen from the classic view has the same
trouble as the MOQ when addressed from a SOM standpoint. We all know
the space distortion quandary; if space curves, what straight
measuring rod do we compare to? Or if time dilates what absolute time
does it fluctuate compared to? It is used as a layman's "disproof" of
relativity but the physicists couldn't care less; GR works perfectly,
they use the said transformation procedures and do not speculate
about "real" space or time (I guess this goes for Quantum Physics
too, it predicts the outcome with great accuracy, but cannot be
understood from a classic p.o.v.). It struck me that MOQ is a General
Relativity of Metaphysics. History as we know it has been a
relentless passage from absoluteness towards relativity. Euclid's
absolute flat geometry has given way to a host of special geometries
(ZMM on Bolyai and Lobachevski), and Ptolemaian cosmology has been
replaced by the Copernican universe that ended absolute direction
(up/down) and centre. Now the mother of all relativity is in the
wings: There is no absolute reality, it "curves" due to the dynamism
underlying it all"..etc.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:13 CEST