Yes, we agree. I can imagine Arlo's ears turning purple. Haha
On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > Exactly. That's why Pirsig compared the MOQ to the Copernican revolution that > brought about a complete change of reality, the sun replacing the earth as > the > center of the universe. We are still feeling the reverberations from that > cataclysmic shift of reality. > > We agree.. > > Platt > > > > On 16 Jul 2010 at 12:22, MarshaV wrote: > > > > Hi Platt, > > Yes, you seem correct to my way of thinking. I don't see how it can > be otherwise. The MoQ is a shift in world-view so great in difference > from the SOM world-view that it makes the split between social and > intellectual levels dwarf in comparison. > > I agree with you. > > > > Marsha > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:19 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, Craig, All:: >> >> Perhaps nowhere else is clinging to SOM shown to be so yesterday than in the >> discoveries of quantum physics. In looking down to find the lowest "thing" >> that was at the bottom of the material world, scientists found there was >> nothing there, a no-thing-ness that mystics found centuries ago. Instead of >> dealing with this inexplicable phenomenon by changing their worldview of >> subjects observing objects, they have invented all sorts of chimeras like >> Plank's constant and multiple universes to cover their you-know-whats. >> >> I don't understand quantum physics either. But, I do understand it has >> proved >> the SOM premise of a fundamental subject/object separation is wrong. Result: >> SOM needs -- not an "extension" or new set of clothes as some suggest -- but >> a >> total replacement. >> >> Alfred North Whitehead, who Pirsig has acknowledged as an influence, said: >> >> "The progress of science has now reached a turning point. The stable >> foundations of physics have broken up. The old foundations of scientific >> thought are becoming unintelligible. Time, space, matter, material, ether, >> electricity, mechanism, organism, configuration, structure, pattern, >> function, >> all require reinterpretation." >> >> Enter the MOQ. >> >> Platt >> >> >> On 16 Jul 2010 at 3:22, MarshaV wrote: >> >> >> Adrie, Craig, >> >> I love it when they tell you that if you think you understand it, you don't. >> >> It is >> also sometimes stated that it beyond rationality, or that our language, which >> has developed with our Aristotelian/Cartesian point-of-view, is contrary to >> Quantum understanding. >> >> There is one explanation that has me puzzled; it's Plank's constant. Most >> of the lectures I've listened to have been for non-scientists. Oh-oh! In >> one >> lecture, granted it was on the 1990's science wars rather than QP, it was >> stated clearly that Plank's constant was chosen and adopted for use to get >> rid of an anomaly (either infinity or zero). It was explained that it is >> sufficiently >> small as not to have a significant impact on the equation while still >> preventing >> the anomaly. Wow! That's like art. >> >> Most of the QP lectures were presented in a very absolute way. For >> instance to paraphrase one professor "this calculation for spin is not just >> mathematics; it is real." What conclusion am I to leap to from that >> statement? >> >> I do not really understand QP, but I love it nonetheless because it is >> pointing >> >> beyond a subject/object world-view. I didn't understand much of the >> article, >> but sensed it was pointing to something of quality. >> >> Thanks Adrie, I keep trying... >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 15, 2010, at 9:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> >>> [Adrie] >>> How would you compare "Weak Quantum Theory: Complementarity and Entanglement >>> in Physics and Beyond" to Pirsig's SODV >>> (http://www.quantonics.com/Pirsigs_SODV.html)? >>> . >>> "Even though the isolation of parts of reality is expected to be a > problematic operation, its possibility, at least in some approximate sense, > is > the prerequisite for any act of cognition and, in fact, already implicit in > the > epistemic split between subjects and objects of cognition." >>> ("Weak Quantum Theory: Complementarity and Entanglement in Physics and > Beyond", >>> p. 11) >>> >>> Explanations of Reality should be so simple a child could >>> understand them. (Pirsig) >>> >>> "This is so simple even a child could understand it. Go out and >>> get me a child--I can't make heads or tails of it." (Marx)Craig >>> >> >> 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
