I'm not sure there's much point responding to this, since Platt's reply is
basically just a series of arguments from authority. Anyone with a more
personal viewpoint is invited to chip in.
From: Platt Holden <pholden5@earthlink.net>
>I'm no expert on physics either. What consititutes "proof" is a
>separate issue we can discuss sometime if you wish. I support my
>contention that reality is observation-dependent by the following
>quote from Pirsig's paper, "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values."
>
>"The most striking similarity between the Metaphysics of Quality and
>Complementarity is that this Quality event corresponds to what Bohr
>means by "observation." When the Copenhagen Interpretation
>"holds that the unmeasured atom is not real, that its attributes are
>created or realized in the act of measurement," (Herbert xiii) it is
>saying something very close to the Metaphysics of Quality. The
>observation creates the reality."
>
>I recognize there are other interpretations of quantum phenomenon
>including the Many Worlds Hypothesis, but the Cophenhagen
>Interpretation Pirsig refers to above is supported by most physicists.
OK, but the Copenhagen Interpretation has some problems. Perhaps you've read
Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind"? One question raised therein is,
"Exactly WHERE does the act of measurement/observation occur?" If a dog
observes a waveform, does it collapse? (I'd say yes.) How about a cockroach?
(Probably, says I.) OK, what about a bacterium? (Well.... I guess so.) What
level of consciousness is sufficient for the waveform to collapse?
Furthermore, what's 'unreal' about a quantum waveform? One might take the
viewpoint that observation is another of Pirsig's filters - it is a filter
on reality that allows only a single quantum state through. Thus we select
the 'reality' we perceive among an immense set of potential possibilities.
But those unperceived potentials are still 'real', right?
>The MOQ explanation is much more comprehensive than you
>suggest. Chapter 11 of Lila is almost entirely devoted to the subject.
>Your randomly evolving photosynthetic creatures expending energy
>to reach a better niche hardly explains why they "reach" for the sun
>or do anything at all. Pirsig's "evolutionary morality" explains the
>"why" of their efforts thoroughly and IMHO convincingly, especially
>considering the lack of alternatives.
My evolutionary argument hardly explains it? What parts doesn't it explain?
I'm currently reading Lila (and am well past chapter 11) and did not find
the MOQ explanation of the "why" of life particularly convincing at all.
Let's consider the meta-question: "Why must there be a 'why'?"
- James
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:08 BST