Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 13:37:44 +0100
Hi Mary and TLS,
Welcome to the Squad Mary!
See comments below -
Mary Wittler wrote:
>
> Hi one and all!
>
> I've been lurking for a while now and have finally decided to plunge
> in.
> Please forgive my ignorance, but I would like to hear the MOQ response
> to
> the following questions:
>
Mary,
Yeah, we know, you are sandbagging us and you really have a Ph.D. in
Philosophy. :)
Doug Renselle.
> 1) If F=ma is not an 'absolute' truth, yet we all still experience
> gravity,
> then what is true? Is it that F=ma is a shorthand acknowledgement of
> the
> high probability of its occurrence?
>
Mary,
My recent posts on this subject said that f=ma is not an absolute truth
because it is not general. Actually, classical science's lack of
generalness is how quantum science was discovered.
As I said also, f=ma works fine (approximately) in the macroworld. It
is how we are able to travel through space, build tall buildings, etc.
But when you try to predict what will happen to an electron in orbit
(SOM language) around the nucleus of an atom f=ma fails!
Another way of saying this is that quantum science works in the
microworld AND in the macroworld.
Classical science creates a kind of illusion that all is well because it
works in the macroworld. But it IS an illusion, because you cannot
trust it to give correct answers in the microworld, or in general.
One of the illusions classical science creates is the illusion of
non-quantal predictability. I.e., long term prediction. We cannot
predict the long term certainty of macroworld events. Poincaré, Popper,
Pirsig, Deutsch, quantum science, et al., made this clear over the last
100 years. We get the illusion of predictability because the moon was
there yesterday, and it has been there for billions of yesterdays, that
it will be there tomorrow. Probably it will be there tomorrow, but
there is a probability that it won't (re: the latest asteroid scare).
Induction says we can predict the future based upon history. In general
that is not true. From what I can tell classical scientists got so used
to thinking in the context-free land of mathematics, where induction
works abstractly, they deluded that we could carry induction into the
physical world. (Poincaré spends much time on this issue.) Now we
know: in general induction does not work in the physical world. The
great Einstein himself got caught in this SOM delusion.
Doug Renselle.
> 2) If the Universe runs on probability, is it really necessary to
> apply the
> constuct of MOQ to it? Why can't the idea of probability stand alone?
> Is
> something more moral if it is more probable?
>
Mary,
>From what I can tell no one knows what the 'multiverse' runs on. High
octane I hope! :)
Quantum science predicts the probable result of a measurement. By the
way, in essence, that is all that quantum science does is predict the
result of measurements. And the results of the measurements are
probabilistic, because the stuff upon which the measurements are made
are modeled as qwfs or quantum wave functions. In the quantum world a
qwf's amplitude squared corresponds to 'probability.'
Who told you that probability cannot stand on its own? Quantum science
produces vastly more accurate measurement result predictions than its
competition.
Note: quantum science says nothing about what happens twixt
measurements. (But there has been a plethora of conjecture. :)
MoQ is important here because of, among others, Pirsig's phrase,
"...values preconditions..." That is exactly what happens in quantum
science.
Doug Renselle.
> 3) Where is the evidence for a moral engine operating in the
> Universe?
>
Mary,
In the House of MoQ 'Better' IS Quality and evolving toward 'Better' is
Morality.
Doug Renselle.
> I await enlightenment. Feel free to shake up my world view!
>
> Regards,
>
> Mary Wittler
> mwittler@nortel.com
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- "I believe that it is only when you try and tell someone else what you think that you begin to understand it yourself."Diana McPartlin, Founder, Counselor, and WebMaster of The Lila Squad, TLS -- TLS, that notorious place where persistent promulgators propound Pirsigian philosophy.
-- 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 - 16:43:06 CEST