peter@pzw1.resnet.cornell.edu
Mon, 15 Dec 1997 03:55:55 +0100
Hello everyone,
This is my first time on the list, I'm hoping for interesting discussions
up ahead.. (Unfortunately however I am leaving campus in three days and
won't be back until late January...)
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > " 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.
Did he actually say this? Quantum Theory destroyed the idea of an
perfectly objective observer, but I'm not entirely convinced that it
"destroyed the idea that only properties located in external physical
objects have reality". I don't understand what exactly this "idea" is.
The "external" here is in reference to what? External to the observer's
body? External to some undefined "conscience"? (kind of a mind-body
split here?)
> But I'm still hung up on the [ONLY],my emphasis, in the above referenced
> quote. I infer from this that man's reality always has a "subjective"
> component which is I believe is born out by the quantum theory. But not
> necessarily that there is no external "objective" component. And that while
> SoM maintains that we can isolate that "objective" component MoQ maintains we
> cannot.
This is the crux of the issue, imho. The statement that "man's reality
always has a subject component which ... is born out by the quantum
theory" is easily understood and correct. The second, "but not
necessarily that there is no external objective component", is somewhat
harder. It has been an age old debate between physicists. On the one
had, Einstein and some of his students believed that there is an
underlying, objective, unprobabilistic reality. However, many researchers
are working today to show that he is wrong and most more or less believe
that Einstein was wrong in saying "God does not play dice". The "current"
body of mainstream quantum theory is really some mathematics, but the most
popular interpretation of the math (the Copenhagen interpretation) does
not "believe" in objective physical properties beyond what is observed and
observable.
The last sentence is dependent on the outcome of the ongoing battle of
quantum physicists to show that there is not a more fundamental reality
beyond the quantum. Since modern-day science is presumably a product of
subject-object metaphysics, and since there is still ongoing research
concerning objective reality, we cannot really say quite yet what SoM
maintains concerning objectivity.
> If the phenomena we observe and call "quanta" forever and always disappears
> from our universe would our reality markedly change?
What do you mean? A "quanta" of what? Everything we observe is
quantized, in some way or another. Indeed our reality would markedly
change, if everything "forever and always" disappeared from our universe.
The term "quanta" is usually used to describe some property, i.e. "a
quanta of light" or "a quanta of angular momentum" or "a quanta of bread".
Generally it is not very use-/meaning-ful by itself...
> Under quantum mechanics if all men die then the does phenomena we observe and
> call "quanta" cease to be? Would the then remaining universe,other than man
> being gone, markedly change? ie would the sun, earth, stars disappear or
> change in any way?
There is sort of a muddled point here. Quantum physics says things about
interactions. Period. Namely, any interaction with a particle causes
certain things about it to be changed. The reason this has any bearing on
metaphysics is because *every* experimental method we know and use
involves interaction(s) with the subject in question. Since there is
interaction, there is a corresponding change in the behavior of the
observed things.
The question "would the sun, earth, stars disappear or change in any way"
is an interesting one. It is essentially identical to the question, "does
the universe exist after I am dead?" The answer, from a strictly
quantum-theoretical-esque point of view, is "Mu. You do not exist to
perform any experiments on the Universe, hence it is *meaningless* to ask
such a question." The trouble is that by asking such a question you have
already essentially assumed the objective existence of the Universe.
> Heard a new blurb that somewhere in Europe, Switzerland it think, scientists
> have succeeded in "teleporting" quanta. But that "Beam me up Scotty" is still
> a fur piece in the future. As an architect the dream of eliminating the auto
> from our built world makes me want to live to be a million years old in the
> hopes that it someday happens. :-)
Actually it was in Austria. I had an opportunity to meet the researcher
doing this work (Dr. Anton Zeilinger) over the summer. (He was my summer
advisor's ex-advisor.) In any case, he had successfully "teleported" a
photon by transporting all its properties (that we could observe) onto
another photon several meters away.
Cheers,
Peter
-------------
Peter Wang 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not
pzw1@cornell.edu just a good idea, it's the law!
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:42:26 CEST