Hi Ian I ought to run the gauntlet for picking on your well-meaning post, but you know old me. Wed July 23 you said
> I'd say the opposite was true. If quantum physics was objectivelycut > and dried - there would be no need to make such investments. It's the > serious "non-objective weirdness" that is driving better understanding > of fundamental physics. (Craig & Ron have exchanged onthe point of 20th > century physics too.) I'm not sure I understand your subtler points, but "no need for such investments"? Quantum Physics may have undermined some of the more common sensical notions, but there certainly is regularity (natural laws) at the quantum level too. The outcome of Quantum- based experiments can be repeated endlessly and the outcome is always the same, it isn't the experimentor's mood which is reflected. > Situation normal Bo ... I said already day to day scientists operate > in the same conventional SOMist world the rest of society does... > convention continues until your "establishment" happens. Not quite, as said a million times it's only SOM's metaphysical quality which is flawed. As MOQ's static intellectual level the S/O distinction will go on as the highest and best value. No funds will be cut to particle physics experiments f.ex. .... if the Q-paradigm shift happens. > Even a well understood paradigm-shifting idea takes three generations > tostick - give or take - or fail to stick, if it's too difficult > tounderstand. Schroedinger, Heisenberg, and Pirsig (and more) have > beenleading the same horse to water for a long time - but the horse > isn'tready to drink - the ideas are seriously weird (compared to > conventional reality). You will know that the "Schrødinger Cat" example postulates that consciousness plays a part, nothing is determined before a human (read: "mind") has looked inside the box. Now, mind is part of the S/O distinction so it does not undermine THAT, only its metaphysical aspect. I have called SOM an endless see-saw, no sooner has the objective part achieved momentum before the subjective will start a counteroffensive. But for goodness sake we are not part of SOM's subjective agenda. > It's not an "inability" to snap out of SOMist intellectual thinking - > just that things that become cast in the stone of "convention" take a > long time to evolve and escape. "Snap" is too optimistic a view of the > time scales involved. Enlightened individuals can change, but > convention is a social level phenomenon, even anintellectual > convention.As Gav would say, only individuals can in fact decide to > change. Touse Marsha's Nagarjuna angle the changes that happen in wider > systemsof intellect are "dependent arisings" not simple objective cause > and effects.Ian I'm reluctant to use "social level" (in the MOQ sense) as reason for SOM's dominance. For thousand of years the intellectual level - like all levels before it - went unchecked till the next level was established. And here is where the level-like aspect of MOQ versus Intellect emerges. It's no static level of its own, yet the meta-level that "checks" intellect by creating the Quality Reality. Intellect is a MOQ "pattern" not the other way round. Bo Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
