Hi Marsha, I'm still in a bit of a mood, these days. Sometimes it almost seems like we're back to counting the angels on the heads of pins, only with different angels and different points of the pin - the one stuck in the wall on the map of everything, the one with the bright red tag that says, "you are here" - and using science to reassure ourselves that it will never happen.
See? The experts conclude: "The universe is really not definable, intellectually." while desperately working harder to do so. Think smarter! not harder. That's my motto. This really caught my eye... > The 'New York Times' recently quoted science historian Jed Buchwald: > "Physicists . . . have long had a special loathing for admitting questions > with the slightest emotional content into their professional work." Indeed, > most physicists want to avoid dealing with that skeleton in our closet, the > role of the conscious observer. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum > mechanics allows that avoidance. It's our discipline's "orthodox" > position." > > >>>> (Rosenblum & Kuttner,'Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters > Consciousness', p.99,2006) > > > I didn't sleep much last night, so I listened off and on to coast-to-coast, the bed seemed cold, the house lonely. I'm gonna start making a fire again. Summer really is over. Anyway, coast to coast had a guy on who was pretty interesting, a dr. who'd written a variety of books, two recent ones discussed were on disaster preparedness and intelligent design. His book on intelligent design was interesting because he used his scientific understanding of the complexity of the human body to question the mechanism of blind chance producing it. A very Pirsigian insight, imo. Anyway, what most perked up my ears was the way he showed how the academy argued against ID. As if you were immediately anti-abortion, gay rights and had accepted jesus as your lord and saviour - a right wing, religious nut. But the universal prejudice itself, seemed to him unrational, and thus unscientific. > The text we teach from emphasizes the correct point by quoting Pascual > Jordan, one of the founders of quantum theory: "Observations not only > disturb what is to be measured, they _produce_ it." But we're sympathetic > with our students. Using quantum mechanics is hard enough without worrying > about what it means." > > I guess its the age of specialization, you can't blame the poor dears. It's takes years of study and discipline just to figure out what we know. We'll leave figuring out what it all means to others. The philosophers. The most assuredly NOT dead, philosophers. pllllbbbbtttttt.... 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
