Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:46:33 +0100
Hi Squad, Donny, Magnus, Sojourner Glove, and everyone who has
contributed to the great wave of postings over the last few days.
Donny wrote:-
>First, a relavent correction to Johnathan on his July 4th post:
>You said that Brahman is "God" while Pirsig leaves God out. Brahman as
a
>god is actualy a symbol. In the more "philosophical" rafters of
Hinduism,
>Brahman is more clearly not a god -- rather Brahman is a trancendent
>energy. ...
Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I should have guessed that using
the word "God" might cause problems. My main point was to equate Brahman
with an ideal, absolute, all-encompassing reality.
I still hold that Pirsig has avoided making a place for this concept in
MoQ.
In return I will correct something Donny wrote:-
>Now one trait of photons (light particals) is that they pair-up into
twins: +
>and - based on their "spin." If you alter the "spin" of one photon,
then
>it's twin will change as well, in order to stay paired.
Photons don't have spin. Only charged particles (most commonly electrons
and protons) have spin, which determines how they interact with magnetic
fields. Quantum mechanics focuses on the behaviour of electrons, which
is what determines the chemistry. There is indeed a pairing of
electrons - Pauli's exclusion principal states that an orbital can
contain up to two electrons provided they have opposite spins. Once the
electron pair is separated, one spin can indeed invert (giving what QM
scientists call a "triplet"). I think that Donny is referring to a
paradox proposed by Einstein where a single event gives two particles of
opposite charge or opposite spin (electron unpairing is a valid
example). An aspect of the uncertainty principal is that you cannot
determine the exact position and exact velocity of a particle
simultaneously - it's one or the other. Einstein proposed that
immediately following generation of a particle pair, there would be a
finite time when one could determine the exact position of particle one,
and the exact velocity of particle two, and thus infer exact position
and velocity of both particles. This is one Einstein's many attacks on
Quantum mechanics.
>Now the hologram analogy:
>W/ a hologram every piece of photographic film contains the whole
>image. . . .
But note that the information to construct the image is repeated many
times. Repetition is what counters uncertainty. Flip a coin once, and we
can't predict the result. Flip it 100 times and we can.
Similarly, airlines can offer a choice of food with most people ending
up with their first choice (or so theory would have it).
==================================
Magnus writes:-
>And I think what you're describing is only intellectual patterns
>and shadows of other levels. ...
Magnus, I sense some hostility here. Yet I think that we are not very
far apart. I would say that all my "description" ARE (intellectual)
patterns, and descriptions of patterns are patterns of patterns.
That last sentence is difficult to read, because it's all patterns;-)
> I see too much of Descartes
>"I think, therefore I am" in it. He tried to prove existence with,
>what he thought was, a non-ad-hoc statement. The MoQ says that
>the following statements are just as valid.
>
>I weigh, therefore I am.
>I sense, therefore I am.
>I interact with others, therefore I am.
>
>The difference is that the MoQ acknowledges that these statements
>are true because of the underlying metaphysics, they're relative.
>Descartes thought that his statement was absolute.
>
>So, why is this important? Because it makes us aware of exactly
>*how* intellectual patterns are relative, *what* they are
>dependent on.
So far Magnus, I agree approximately 100 per cent.
>I think that your version of the MoQ sounds more
>like some kind of moral framework inside idealism.
I'm not sure what you mean by the above. Please clarify.
>> It was Isaac Newton who said that bodies continue moving in a
straight
>> line with constant velocity until acted on by an extraneous force (or
>> words to that effect). Here we have the paradox of static
>> vs.dynamic. ...
>There is no paradox, patterns are static. DQ is non-patterns, change of
>patterns.
But change of patterns is also a pattern - as long as one can grasp the
underlying complexity.
This is why I hit upon Glove's use of the word "precession". It's also
why I reject the view that DQ is change (rather than cause of change).
To be perfectly honest, I can see some value in what Sojourner has now
suggested:-
>DQ = energy
>SQ = matter
My understanding of quantum theory is that energy has no existence
without a container, be it a photon, a vibrating string, or a Uranium
nucleus. The container is always "matter". This is why physicists looked
so hard for the "ether" which carried light before the idea that light
is it's own matter (photons) was adopted. Similarly, all matter is
energy - E=mc^2. Thus matter and energy are not distinct, just different
ways of looking at the same thing. In physics, the cause of change is
energy. DQ=energy, the cause of change, sounds pretty good to me.
Magnus also wrote:-
>You seem to derive your SQ/DQ split from the CQ/RQ division. (I don't
>think Pirsig denoted them Quality though. He talked about classical
>and romantic understandings, not Quality.) They have nothing to do
>with each other. They are completely different.
You may be correct that Pirsig talks about classical and romantic
understandings, but IMO that is definitely understanding of QUALITY.
Otherwise what is understanding (in Pirsigian terms)?
I know that the classic/romantic and static/dynamic splits are not the
same. The former is a theme of ZAMM, the latter comes to the fore in
Lila. I think that it is a pity that Pirsig completely abandoned the
classic/romantic aspect in Lila.
==============================
Glove wrote:-
>jung speculated on a collective
>(un)consciousness, and sheldrake expanded on that idea and called it
his
>morphogenetic field theory.
[snip]
>sheldrake did offer some experiments to test his hypothesis
I believe that Sheldrake had some argument with Nature, which ended up
with the journal sponsoring a competition to design a suitable
experiment. Actually I am assuming this was about Sheldrake's ideas - I
remember the theme, but not the people involved. As I recall, the
"winning experiment" was that if one took a popular Chinese children's
song, known to many hundreds of millions, it would prove easier to learn
to a Westerner than a nonsense Chinese song (the control). The result of
the experiment was that there was no difference (i.e. not in Sheldrake's
favour).
Regards to all,
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST