Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:15:30 +0100
Gene Kofman wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> >I keep pushing the importance of quantum mechanics (QM) to my fellow
> TLS mates because
> Pirsig's >MoQ is so incredibly like what I have read and know about
> the quantum world.
>
> Exactly, I started reading about QM only after SODV and was very
> excited to see the
> similarities.
>
> >I think Pirsig did an excellent job of relating complementarity to
> MoQ (in SODV).
>
> Yes, I appreciate Pirsig’s SODV presentation even more after I read
> couple articles
> by Bohr.
>
> >The double slit experiments described in the two subtitles I
> referenced above sound
> to me awesomely >similar to the previous paragraph. The experiments
> can be set up
> in such a way to allow the system to in >essence be superposed,
> wavelike. As soon
> as the experiment tries to observe the (paths of the) wave
> >superpositions, a QE
> occurs and the system latches to particle-like. I do not understand
> ("...nobody
> >understands...") this completely, but it appears that when we observe
> the superposed
> 'quantum quality' >surrounding us the observed quantum wave functions
> experience
> a QE and latch into reality. That is how >I see it. Perhaps now you
> can see why
> I am so predisposed on this subject.
>
> Bohr says that particle vs. wave experiments set up are mutually
> exclusive and we
> have to live with ‘complementing’ results of one with the results of
> another. I like
> the notion of non intellectual value patterns having DQ events. That’s
> what I meant
> by ‘inorganic DQ’ in my previous post long time ago. Or is it the
> inclusion of the
> Subject with his/her tools into the experiment what makes the DQ event
> possible?
Gene,
I do not know how long you have been monitoring the posts at TLS, but if
it has been at least 6-8 weeks you may recall some hints by members of
TLS that they suspect (I do not remember the exact words here.)
'awareness' or 'pattern recognition' may scale across the MoQ SPoV
spectrum. Perhaps it was Magnus, but I think others may have hinted
this too. Certain atoms have special affinity for selected other atoms,
so we could refer to this in MoQese as a type of 'pattern recognition.'
IMhO, this happens at all levels.
It seems necessary since we cannot explain the first occurrence of each
SPoV in each level very easily without it. Of course, MoQ explains it
very well with the concepts of Value, Quality, and Dynamic Quality.
As I study more, and consider the 'meaning' of SPoV, and these hints, I
find my mind inferring that what we call intellectual SPoVs have primal
forms that allow the other levels to (in a manner of speaking)
'observe.' If this is true, then there IS a dual between quantum and
dynamic MoQ QEs at all levels. Thus we explain from a different
viewpoint the mechanism for SPoV evolution independently (and/or
dependently) in each level. Again, QM appears to be a friend and ally
of the MoQ!
Certainly, the quantum systems (quantum wave functions) of the
microworld are somehow 'aware' that the (intent of the) experiment has
changed and they change their behavior accordingly. (Remember, quantum
systems are not like classical systems. In classical SOM theory,
classical systems have properties. To say this in MoQ language SOM
subordinates value to (in) subjects and objects. When SOM puts
properties in subjects and objects, it subordinates value and quality.
In quantum mechanics, subjects and objects do NOT have properties. The
INTERRELATIONSHIPS among quantum systems have properties. This is
nearly identical to saying quantum systems are IN quality and they are
IN value. For quantum systems the value is in the interrelationships
which are stochastic or probabilistic.)
A similar thing happens when quantum systems are accelerated and slammed
into one another in various linear and circular accelerators. Awareness
manifests itself here via the particular SPoVs generated when certain
combinations of particles collide. Feynman's QED (Quantum Electro
Dynamics) would not work otherwise. (This is a more MoQ way of looking
at the situation than a quantum physicist would.)
To answer your question, it appears that the action of the subject
and/or object observing (attempting to observe) the superposed state
causes the latch. If we had the resources, it would be fun to see if we
could answer, "Does a (let's say) robot, frog, or water molecule have
the same effect?" I think we may already know the answer to this
question. I have not read the literature with this in mind.
Mtty, Gene,
Doug Renselle.
>
> >Now given that QM is the best we have and SOM types are having to
> convert to this
> new reality, doesn't >QM give us a big fulcrum to leverage MoQ into
> acceptance?
> I think it does.
>
> Yes, I do agree. I think QM can be a starting point in any
> conversation about MoQ
> with outsiders. Everybody respects QM and showing how it destroys SOM
> can naturally
> prepare soil for salvation through MoQ.
Gene,
Thankyou for the pro-QM-helps-MoQ vote!
Doug Renselle.
>
> Gene.
>
> Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
> http://www.mailexcite.com
>
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST