On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:06 AM, David Thomas wrote: > 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
Hi Dave, Seems to me you've mentioned having an understanding of Buddhism. So I meant that things, like photons, chairs, particles spin, are thought to have inherent existence, to have their own being, their own individual independence, rather than being an aspect of interdependent processes. I'm neither a scientist nor a Buddhist, so forgive the inadequacy of my explanation. Can a photon be analyzed and manipulated separately from its causes and conditions? Is the mass of a photon other than conceptually constructed? If causes and conditions also have causes and conditions that also have causes and conditions what is lost in creating a false boundary to confine a photon to something definable and analyzable. Can a photon be analyzed meaningfully after such a dissection. Do scientists ask these questions? Do they factor the missing information into experiments? What changes when it is understood that a photon is a static pattern of value? When they create a procedure or instrument to test a photon how much of the results is directly established by the procedure and instrument employed. What questions are educated out of a curious mind when receiving an education? Marsha ___ 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
