Hi Bo, interesting. Other "pro-MoQists" disagree with you more strongly than I do, and I've always suspected any disagreement I have may be more subtle than I recognize yet, so I'm always interested in pursuing further. Thanks - some good points - my thoughts inserted ...
On 7/28/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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"? [IG] Don't ignore the conditional "if / would". Clearly fundamental physics is still full of mysteries that justify expensive experiments. > Quantum Physics may have undermined some of > the more common sensical notions, but there certainly is regularity > (natural laws) at the quantum level too. [IG] A certain regularity ? I'm not so sure. There are those questioning this expectation of the intelligibility of fundamental physics - it's a "faith" many hold onto, but it's not a given > 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. [IG] No, that's not true. The outcomes of "quantum-based" experiments are only the "same" in an approximate statistical macro sense - the outcomes of individual quantum events are not fundamentally repeatable or predictable - that's the point. calls into question common sense views of "time", "events" and "causation" themselves. Nothing quite so convenient as "subjective mood" will solve that mystery. It's the observation, the interaction, not the observer that is the suspect. A subject is just another object that may or may not be part of the experiment, or rather the things a SOMist experimenter might choose to focus attention on. [IG] I don't want a long debate on fundamental quantum physics, neither of us is an expert. David M recommended Shimon Malin, and like Gribben, he suggests the weirdness of the one-electron / two-slits experiment (one electron, notice) is at the root of every other weirdness of quantum theories. Wheeler, Deutsch, Josephson, and many more have written at length on possible newer metaphors. Let's just say your statements on Quantum Physics seem (to many of us) to be based on older readings. > > > 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. [IG] And this is where we have got to before. You may be right, and I may be saying the same thing when I quote Max Born (again) that fundamental physics is actually metaphysics. That is, when you (they, the thoughtful scientists) look at outstanding issues with SOMist-based physics, they realise they are dealing with a metaphysical problem. (Shroedinger and Heisenberg both got this very early on.) > 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't ready 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. [IG] Don't forget Bo, that this has only ever been a "thought experiment", and a very very old and very tired one at that. Someone (?) once said "If I hear anyone mention Shrødinger's cat again .... I'll, I'll ..... scream." The idea that mind or consciouness enters the box is speculation, and at best metaphorical and a very successful MEME. If we're going to talk about Shrødinger, can we please use some of his stuff on life or wave equations, and what that says (if anything) about reality. BUT - I agree with you - mind (the self-conscious entity-in-itself) is just part of the SOMist convention too - it's the S in SOM. Here we get close to progress. > 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. [IG] Absolutely BO, I agree. Subjects are as illusory as objects; subjectivity is as bad as objectivity (from a metaphysical perspective); they're just conventions from a physical perspective. Dichotomies (between static things) are a recipe for flip-flopping, no progress at all. Neither I, nor any clever physicists, are proposing subjectivism as an alternative to objective rationality. > > > 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. [IG] Well here you seem to be agreeing with me. Let's leave the social perspective aside - accept your reluctance for now. MOQism has evolved to be "level-like" distinct from (but NOT independent of) the Intellectual level itself - I've been pretty neutral on whether we express this as a level or a pattern within a level(s) - my preference is that it is NOT a separate level - but without getting concensus that the intellectual level is "more than" SOMism too, then I remain hesitant. > 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. [IG] I (think I) agree again. But isn't that true of all the "levels" - they are meta-levels long-lived "species" - patterns-of-patterns (MEMEPLEXES) that are relatively static over evolutionary timescales, relative to the levels either side. (My wider agenda has long been that none of the levels is hard and fast in any absolute sense - just in the metaphysical choice sense - we choose to recognise these levels as worthwhile. We could have endless debates over the physical / biological boundary, and the biological / social if anyone wanted to - but let's not go there - they're boring by comparison and no one has identified any good reason to reconsider them - like the next US election, or next US invasion, is not likely to depend on it in the way they do on social / intellectual debates.) [IG] Our difference over the social level are to do with other arguments - about symbolic manipulation and the like, whatever people hold as distinguishing the intellectual level - let's stick to the intellect and SOMism / MoQism for now. I think we're making progress - but lay off the quantum physics unless you have some newer readings ;-) to share with us. > > 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/ > 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/
