Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:16:05 +0100
Hi Dave and TLS,
Dave, also see my response to Diana on the same topic.
See comments below:
Dave Thomas wrote:
>
> Diana,Doug
>
> > The Metaphysics of Quality
> > 2. The MoQ is the intellectual path to enlightenment.
>
> > Also, is it "the" path, or "an intellectual path?"
>
...
>
> > >Quality is intrinsically uncertain and certain - that's its nature.
>
> Doug is not this certainty, uncertainty, as they apply it in quantum
> physics
> expressed in patterns. ie We can set up an experiment to demonstrate a
> series
> of events and while we can predicted a certain pattern of results, we
> can only
> talk about it in terms of probablity. Is not this analogous to what
> MoQ calls
> static patterns, in so much as they are stable but not truely fixed,
> we can
> identify the pattern but not necessarily the location of each
> individual
> element at any given point in time.
Dave,
As I understand it, science is now accumulating a variety of
'uncertainty principles,' including ones on energy-time, information
packet duration-bandwidth, and the classic and original Heisenberg UP on
position-momentum.
The latter is explained ad nauseam in the literature. It says, as you
did above, that we can probabilistically know both position and momentum
together, but that if we know either one absolutely then we can't know
the other at all.
Doug.
> Now whether this is because of
> the finite
> nature of our minds, the static patterns drifting, or the interaction
> of SQ
> and DQ would be hard to say. Probably all of the above.
Dave,
My conjecture is that it is because latched and unlatched harmonic
wave-systems compose Quality/Reality.
Doug.
> So if what
> Diana has
> said about your conclusions in true.
>
> > Your uncertainty principle would seem to say that we can predict
> static
> > quality but we can't predict Dynamic Quality.
>
Dave,
I did not say or intend to say the last sentence above.
See my comments to her under separate email.
Doug.
>
...
> If this is so I would have to agree your uncertainty
> principle needs to be somehow illustrated more clearly. Would this not
> help to
> incorporate Pirsig's praise for science's ability to change based on
> new
> information and/or theories?
>
Dave,
I 'certainly' cannot disagree with this.
The 'uncertainty' of it all combined with the 'certain' aspects upon
which we depend, demand the provisional feature you suggest. By-the-way
that is what saved SOM-science thus far. That was the one key principle
in its evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) upon which it was able to
survive.
Mtty, Dave,
Doug Renselle.
> Dave
>
-- "It is not the facts but the relation of things that results in the universal harmony that is the sole objective reality."Robert M. Pirsig, --on Poincaré's assessment of classical reality, in --'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' p. 241, Bantam (paperback), 28th edition, 1982.
-- 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 - 16:42:38 CEST