Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:56:07 +0100
Hugo and TLS,
You capture my thoughts and my vector of opinion perfectly in the
following text.
What you have said here is SO important to understand!
MoQ is THE metaphysics which contains and interpenetrates quantum
theoretical/mechanical (QM) science.
To/for TLS -- I consider Hugo's writing here a watershed event in our
history as a philosophy discussion group (with our prime focus on Lila
of course).
How many of you agree? How many of you just don't know enough about QM
to say whether you agree? Are those of you in the latter group willing
to put a little extra effort into QM (off site, that is) to understand
what Pirsig has REALLY achieved?
Assuming each of you wants to use MoQ in your life and proselytize MoQ
in your individual contexts, I believe we have an obligation to learn
the rudiments of QM. For me, and I am sure for Hugo, Gene, et al., the
discovery process and the adventure provide countless more QEs in our
lives. We can now mine both the works of philosophy and QM and
continually rediscover their dualities! Simultaneously we expand the
MoQ and its influence.
IMO, your post here is superb, Hugo.
Doug Renselle.
Hugo Fjelsted Alroe wrote:
>
> Gene, Dough, and LS, on Bohr and MoQ.
>
> Thanks for the quote from Bohr, Gene, I agree.
>
> Dough, as for myself, Quantum Mechanics, and the philosophical
> questions
> that had to be handled in establishing QM as a science, has played an
> important role in my journey into the unknowns of Metaphysics of
> Quality.
> And especially Bohrs writings.
>
> In 1938 Bohr suggested that the word *phenomenon* 'was used solely to
> refer
> to observations obtained under specified circumstances, including an
> account of the entire experimental setup'. And this is at the root of
> his
> ideas on complementarity. Because Bohr was talking of the very
> essentials
> of physics, this was in sharp opposition with the traditional
> objectivist
> view of physics, an opposition which could not be ignored.
> Hence all the fuzz about the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper, which
> stated,
> from an explicit objectivist stance, that QM was not a complete
> description
> of physical nature. And Bohrs answer to that paper was never really
> understood in the general society of physicists, not even today. The
> way I
> read Bohrs answer, he stated that the problem was in the objectivist
> view
> and not in QM, but unfortunately he did not express it very clearly.
> (If
> anyone is interested, I can try to give my reading of these papers in
> more
> detail.)
>
> Nevertheless the EPR-paper and Bohrs answer was later to become
> confronted
> in an actual experiment, the experiment performed by Aspect and others
> back
> in the eighties. In my eyes this experiment decides the matter (as
> always -
> in a conjectural manner) in favour of Bohr, *and* in favour of a
> MoQ-like
> metaphysics. So if someone might wonder why QM keeps popping up on the
> list, there are good reasons for this, because in QM MoQ confronts the
> objectivist metaphysics face to face, - and it looks like MoQ is ahead
> on
> points (though we should be cautious due to the distance from theory
> to
> experiment, - as Bodvar wrote recently: "Phaedrus of ZMM found that
> there
> are an unlimited number of
> theories that fit ANY observation").
>
> I find these QM issues important, because if we can establish the
> misfit of
> SOM here in the heart of physics, and show how a MoQ might remedy the
> situation, then SOM has lost a great deal of its immune system.
>
> Hugo
>
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- " But quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only properties located in external physical objects have reality."Robert M. Pirsig, page 14 in his paper "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values," presented at the Einstein Meets Magritte conference, Fall 1995.
-- 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 - 16:42:14 CEST