Dear Ken, Troy, Horse, Bo, Magnus, Squad,
Ken Clark has turned to me twice on questions of physics. Firstly Ken,
let me say how pleased I am to see you return to full intellectual
fitness. I hope your physical health is progressing equally well.
KEN CLARK:
>If we regard Quality (or Dynamic Quality) as being responsible for the
>organization of the early universe (watch me here Jonathan), and we
begin
>with the organization of the early universe, we can make a logical
>construct for the evolution of the universe up to, and including, the
>present.
Let me first note that Ken typically starts with a "historical" approach
tracing everything back to the beginning of the Universe. This approach
is the epitome of causality, where everything that happens is a
consequence of things that happened before. The doctrine of Causality
has served Science (and society) very well, but starts to break down at
the quantum level, and when we start to discuss determinism vs. free
will. This is not to say that causality should be rejected; on the
contrary, most of our patterns of understanding are "cause and effect".
They are part of our reality map.
In another post, KEN writes:
>If the Quantum level is really non-deterministic then how is it that we
>live in such a predictable universe at the inorganic level. It seems
>obvious to me that the results of the actions at the Quantum level
always
>produce predictable results. Otherwise how will we know that Wal-Mart
will
>always be at the same place when we need a pair of socks or some motor
oil.
>We do not understand the Quantum level but we always observe
predictable
>results. Current theory tells us that all else rests on the workings
within
>the Planck time and distance. I would be interested in Jonathan's
thoughts
>on this.
In quantum physics, probability and tendency replace any mechanistic
cause. Both probability and tendency mean that a result will repeat
itself with a finite chance. In the case of "Wal-Mart" common experience
tells us that the probability is close to 100%. Any useful "theory"
would have to calculate the same expected result.
Ironically, what is completely uncertain at any instant at the
subatomic level, becomes almost completely knowable over a finite time
or if we look at an ensemble of many similar systems. Thus an airline
cannot know what meal an individual may choose, but can make a good
guess at the overall choice of a hundred passengers. It may all rest on
workings within Planck time and distance, but most of our knowledge is
based on empirical observations of probabilities and generalisations
from those.
This is why TROY ...
>can talk to [his] mom about politics and predict nearly exactly what
>she will "think".
Let me now continue on to the discussion between Horse, Bo and Magnus on
"level 5 ...", because some of the above is relevant. First, let me say
that I don't think that a computer virus is a higher level any more that
a biological virus is "above" the biological level.
I believe that the higher levels come about by EXPLOITING inherent
tendencies within the lower levels. Life is driven by exploiting
chemical reactions which follow the same chemical laws as in non-living
systems. Society exploits certain inherent biological urges of man, and
a computer virus exploits the inherent logic of the operating system.
Whether this "exploitation" requires the awareness or agreement of the
lower level is irrelevant. However, the combined force released usually
affects the operating conditions with which the lower level contends
It occurs to me that the free market is an evaluation system based on
this principal. Individuals buy and sell based on individual
evaluations, and this determines "market" value. On the other hand,
individual evaluations are based on current supply and demand
conditions. Ironically, when individual assessments all change together
in the same direction, chaos can ensue. What happened in the "Black
October" market crash was that too many "objective" assessments regarded
the market as overvalued.
Absolute objectivity is the death knell to the free market system -
subjective diversity is what it needs.
Now a word to Bo about SOTAQI:-
Here's that Pirsig quote again:-
"If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics- Inorganic,
Biological,
Social and Intellectual, nothing is left out. No 'thing', that is. Only
Dynamic
Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent."
BO, do you think that there is such a thing as non-SO thinking? I
thought that the whole point of MoQ was that SO thinking was inadequate.
That being the case, where would you place non-SO thinking within the
four levels? Surely its not a MoQ playtypus!
Jonathan B. Marder <MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il>
Department of Agricultural Botany, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Faculty of Agriculture, P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
Phone: +972 8 9481918 Fax: +972 8 9467763
Web page: http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:33 BST