The biggest problems arise by stepping between Metaphysiks and physikal reality. The key-issue as where you are stumbling upon is the wrong interpretation of of the Copenhagen rulings.
Go back to the originating point of view , Heisenbergs point of view, " without observer there are no facts" True all the way, but typically Heisenberg, he does only speak of "Fact" and "observer" and you need the two to reformulate it He speaks only of facts, not reality, gravity, history.........feel me coming? you have to stay in the complete formuling,otherwise you are about to declare E=mc5, wont work...... Without observer there are no facts ,... true all the way, but he did not exclude reality, history, future... he stayed in the physikal cluster, and the Copenhagen interpretation was not developed for use in Metaphysiks. But the use of the Cop-int in Metaphysiks is allowable if and when you master all implications of it , Like Pirsig. Is he in conflict with the Copenhagen interpretation,? well , no, but it is very difficult to explain why not, the matter is so complicated that it requires to be skilled in these interpretations. He is not conflicting. The problem is that there are no study-guides for this matters, and there should be. I think, as far as i can see it, your questions, is that your look and feel of it , leans towards Bohrs personal and very fundamental Copenhagen interpretation,. I think Bohrs explanation can be drafted from Stanford .edu. give me a wink if you dont find it. Adrie 2010/9/9 David Thomas <[email protected]> > On 9/8/10 1:47 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > Seems to me you've mentioned having an understanding of Buddhism. > [Dave] > No not really. I've read several books about Buddha and Buddhism. However > since the most basic precept of Buddhism is that it cannot be understood > unless one experiences it through long term practice under the guidance of > a > adept teacher, should not anything written about the subject be, just as or > more suspect, than any claim of science? > > >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? > > [Dave] > Baking a cake is an interdependent process of ingredients, heat, and time. > Can you measure a cup of flour separately from the sugar? Does it usually > make any difference that water necessary for the cake is dependent on a > water system built and maintained through your payments and taxes? If the > water commissioner is a Republican is the cake more likely to fall? If it > does fall is that just a figment of your imagination? Is the cake real? > > See how absurd this kind of thinking can become? It's called "lumping". > Mystic "oneness" is the most extreme kind of lumping. Everything is > dependent/interrelated with everything else. There is no reality that you > can know except by finding a guru or a philosopher to lead you down the > path > to enlightenment or insanity. They're both the same you know. Pirsig said > so. > > I know DMB is not your best buds but read his response to my posting and > you > will see the logical but equally absurd extension of James and Pirsig's > work > coming to the same conclusion. There is no reality except the one you make > up for yourself, all views are equally good, except those made up by > scientists and priests. The value of this is approach is that it marries > romantic quality neutered of spirit and faith with classic quality neutered > of reason and rationality. We are left with rhetoric and sophistry which > about sums up the current state of the philosophic enterprise. Is their any > doubt why most Americans are highly skeptical of all systems of philosophy? > > > 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? > > [Dave] > Nothing according to Pirsig. The data are the data. And scientists are in > the business of digging for data. Where the problems arise is when either > scientists or philosophers try to "interpret" the data and its consequences > on the usually several collective, competing philosophic views of reality. > > 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 > > > 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 > -- parser 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
