Hi Jamie, Roger, Horse, Platt, others
I see a big link between the things Roger wrote about the song not being the same
after observation and Platt and James discussion about quantum physics. I write about
this in the second part of this post. First a remark about ...
1)THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL SIDE OF DQ
Jamie and Rog, I've thought a lot about the epistemologic side of DQ
since the last post. I think Roger is right with his clay example. We discussed
this before in a privat thread with Horse. The following lines about our discussion
of Formative and Contributive say it all.
Horse:
> From a human point of view the actual moment of change - the event itself -
> is prior to the realization of the event as there is a finite period needed for
> the intellectualization of the event. So from the intellectual perspective the
> change event is always in the past. Recognition of a change event contributes
> to change in the recognizer and is thus also Dynamic Quality (Contributive DQ)
Roger:
> OK.... I see what you mean here. There is a sequential order to causality......
> like a DQ buffer delay. If I was to show an extreme example, I could use a row
> of dominoes. To knock the 1st one over, I have started a quality event ( to use
> strict MOQ......it caused me and the dominoes to change)... that has a separate
> component from me and the first dominoe to the last.
I think this is very beautiful and has some important implications. It doesn't
complete the whole picture for me, but for now it does.
2) REALITY DEPENDENT OF OBSERVATION
I hope you can give me your views on the following.
Roger's second part of his post about the song ends with him explaining
that in regular methaphisics the song stays the same ...
> perception in classic metaphysics belongs to the subject. In the MOQ,
> the experience is considered foremost and the song and listener are
> abstracted from the process.
but in the MOQ
> experience is primary. The thousandth experience is quite different than
> the first, and the subject and object that are created from the experience
> are correspondingly changing.
Platt wrote
> Robert ignores quantum physics ... the assumption reality exists
> independent of observation has been proven wrong.
And
> I support my contention that reality is observation-dependent by the
> following quote from Pirsig's paper, "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values:
> (Pirsig) "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 heared a famous physisian explain the uncertainty principle quantum fysics.
That Reality-depends-on-observation is the outcome of the determination
of the position of a quantum in space. To observe them, one has to shine
light on them and subsequently because of the photons in light, the quantum
is not on the same place anymore.
It seems kind of strange that Pirsig uses this as a similarity with the MoQ.
Can someone fill me in on this one???
Dtchgrtngs
Walter
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 - 16:03:09 BST