On 9/7/10 1:32 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > I wasn't speaking of those on this list who are analyzing the physicists > metaphysical notion of 'real'. Most, of these physicists/scientists are > scientific materialist and they believe that the photon is an independent >existing entity.
Definition of INDEPENDENT 1: not dependent: as a (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore> b (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3) : not bound by or committed to a political party c (1) : not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) <independent of her parents> (2) : being enough to free one from the necessity of working for a living <a person of independent means> d : showing a desire for freedom <an independent manner> e (1) : not determined by or capable of being deduced or derived from or expressed in terms of members (as axioms or equations) of the set under consideration; especially : having linear independence <an independent set of vectors> (2) : having the property that the joint probability (as of events or samples) or the joint probability density function (as of random variables) equals the product of the probabilities or probability density functions of separate occurrence Merriam Webster Dictionary-Online [Dave] My guess is that most if not all physicists/scientists/scientific materialists would say they believe that photons are DEPENDENT on a light source. No light source, no photons. They then would go on to note that according to experiences in quantum mechanics observing light, that photons existence display a tiny degree of indeterminacy. Comparing the scientific materialist position to Pirsig's, Which would support a relatively higher degree of "independence" for "the inorganic pattern of value" called a photon? That would be Pirsig of course. Pirsig suggests that this quantum indeterminacy of photons is a result of some tiny degree of "experience," they "feel" leading them to "show a tiny degree of freedom." Photons "feel" or "value", like every other pattern, it is good to be free to whatever small degree is available to them. The more important question is, "Which position is closer to reality?" Shouldn't we all start picketing at the UN carrying signs reading, "Saving energy kills photons-Turn on your lights-Free photons now!" Dave 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
