hello everyone
Lithien wrote:
to anyone who would care to respond:
according to the theory of relativity, it is matter which distorts the
fabric of spacetime. it seems to me that it is in the accretion of matter
that time is distorted to appear linear. therefore, couldn't MoQ's 4 levels
evolve in a past, present, future scenario whereas Dynamic Quality, which
lies outside it, is non-linear ie. timeless? why would one negate the
other?
Lithien, i am unable to answer any of your questions, but i have pulled a
few highlights from a volumn on relativity in an effort to see how they
merge with Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality.
Einstein said: "Using hyperlight velocities we could telegraph into the
past." (Quoted by Sommerfeld from discussions)
in many of his papers, Einstein used 'thought experiments' to illustrate his
ideas. in one, Einstein invisioned a rigid metal rod of a specific length
secured to an
axis that allows it to rotate. he then speculated that an impulse w applied
to
one end of the rod, A, must be simultaneously felt at B, the opposite end
of the rod. he writes:
"There arises instantaneously in the rod a straining force that propagates
with an infinite velocity, thereby compensating for the force at A. There
also arises in the rod an 'unknown Qualitat' that propagates with a finite
velocity along the rod causing the acceleration required for compensating
the force at A." (Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity; Emergence
and Early Interpretation by Arthur Miller, pg. 273)
now, if we have a short section of rod there is no problem, but what if we
examine rods of longer and longer length? relativity told Einstein that as
the rod grew in length, a gap must occur between the time of the impulse at
A and the reaction at B, but this is not the case in a rigid rod. there
seemed to be an inherent instantaneous-ness within the rod that defied
relativity's constant, or the speed of light as the limit of speed in our
universe, that Einstein could not explain and so put off to a time when a
deeper understanding of physical reality was obtained.
Einstein doesnt speculate futher along these lines because, he writes:
"...we are still far from possessing a dynamics of parallel translation of
rigid bodies".
however, later this same concept comes back to haunt him in the so-called
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. he called the notion of quantum
entanglement "spooky".
in a1907 paper Einstein shows that w > c, where w is the impulse and c is
the speed of light, and that *t' < 0- that is, the signal is received at B
before it is sent. "In my opinion," concluded Einstein, "if [the equation]
is regarded as pure logic then it contains no contradictions; however, it
absolutely clashes with the character of our total experience, and in this
manner is proven the impossibility of w > c." (Pg. 238, Einsteins Spec.
Theory)
then along came Hermann Minkowski, who turned Einsteins metal bar into
electrons. Minkowski had used Einsteins research to help de-materialize the
"ether" of Lorentz and Poincare` and turn it into a "world" comprised of
space-time points.
Einstein used Minkowski's work, after his untimely death in 1909, as a
guide to generalizing his special relativity theory in 1916. he began his
major paper on the general relativity theory thus: "The generalization of
the relativity theory was facilitated through the form that Minkowski has
given to the special relativity theory." (Pg. 243, Spec. Theory of
Relativity) however, the
problematic equation w > c kept reappearing. it was put off to deformation
of moving bodies and elasticity.
contrary to what we might think today, not every scientist accepted
Einsteins relativity theory, and among them
were the very men whose approval he most cared about...Planck, Poincare`
and
Lorentz. in fact Poincare` referred to relativity as "Lorentz's principle of
relativity". Poincare`, our link to Pirsig thru Lila, was of the old "ether"
school, which by the way seems to be regaining more acceptance in todays
modern quantum theory.
anyway, what all this really says is how very difficult your questions are
to answer, Lithien. what you say is entirely possible but in dealing with
Dynamic Quality we are unable to pin it down and say 'this is what it does'
or that it is indeed 'outside' of time. we could say that time is enfolded
in Dynamic Quality like a rock is enfolded by the waves when dropped into a
still pond. but thats not really right either.
best wishes to all,
glove
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Bohr.html
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 - 16:02:36 BST