Hi John, This book is about the enigmas that should concern the philosophers. It is an excellent book, because it bypasses the practices to consider the meaning. And wasn't it a very wise many who recently stated: "Truth is stranger than fiction, and more wonderful and weird."
Yours, Marsha On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:32 PM, John Carl wrote: > 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 ___ 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
