MARSHA introducing Zeno in the postings. An experiment published in 1990 suggests that Zeno was right. In
this experiment, scientists demonstrated the quantum equivalent of the adage that "a watched pot doesn't boil." This behavior, the "quantum Zeno effect," turns out to be a function of observation. "It seems,"said physicist Peter Coveney, "that the act of looking at an atom prevents it from changing". Theoretically, if a nuclear bomb were watched intently enough -- that is, if you could check its atoms every million trillionth of a second -- it wouldn't explode. Bizarre? The problem lies not in the experiments but in our way of thinking about time. Biocentrism is the only comprehensible way to explain these results, which are only "weird" in the context of the existing paradigm. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/is-death-the-end-new- expe_b_774814.html?view=print.END Mark commenting on it 118 aan moq_discuss details weergeven 16:13 (6 uren geleden) Hi Marsha, I am not much of a Huffington reader. But this does seem to bring up the paradoxes coming from quantum mechanics. Because they are paradoxes, they are interesting, but may just point to the circular referencing of knowledge and the pitfalls one can run into using logic. Physics is not different in this respect. At such times, one can simply revert back to the intuitive and dispel what logic or math tell us. Such quandaries also result from quantum vector collapse. Logical statements may be misleading and perhaps aberrations of the method of analysis or description. As such, the intellectual level has its own faults. It is interesting to consider why they arise, what is the root of such paradoxes? Whether it be Zeno or Coveney, both are descriptions created by the human mind. Where is the defect? Cheers, Mark Marsha again,.. Hi Mark, I believe the root of the paradoxes is thinking reality is made up of a self and independent, external objects. The 'self' is a particularly thorny problem, and one very difficult to overcome. For me, it is the detaching from the SOM illusion that is the key. imho Marsha --------------------------------------------------------------- (Adrie) about the illusion and the defect Mc Watt quoting Mr Pirsig commenting Parmenides and "Zeno" quote (MOQ and time)-Mc Watt >From the standpoint of contemporary physics, the Parmendians [sic] were right to claim a distinction between appearance and reality but wrong in their claim where the illusion lies. What is illusory is constancy, not change. (Di Santo & Steele, 1990, p.160) Clark (1999) argues that Parmenides’ theory concerning change could be an absolute truth (having the same ontological status as a Platonic form): ‘If true, always true’ and, therefore, existing before Parmenides discovered it. However, there still was change in Parmenides conscious mind from not having the theory (that change is illusory) to having this theory. Moreover, it appears that Parmenides is conflating a description of reality (i.e. being) that by definition can’t cease to exist with reality itself and is, therefore, begging the question in the first place. On the other hand, from the Dynamic sense of the MOQ, Parmenides is, strictly speaking, correct as the concept of ‘change’ is an abstraction from Dynamic Quality and, therefore, (as with anything abstracted) doesn’t exist in an absolute sense. Possibly, the koan-like theories of Parmenides and "Zeno" indicate (and they may have shared similar thinking to Zen masters for such verbal conundrums) ""the error of assigning absolute truth to a static concept when reality is fundamentally dynamic. "" "", "" In the last sentence is mine.(partially), nothing else is changed. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pirsig is rejecting this Parmenides-Zeno koan-like occult reality. Marsha and Mark are trying to launch it back in. Backpeddling to the caves? This material is based upon the case's evidence. ps. Mc Watt is quoting HAWKING a zillion times on his page. http://robertpirsig.org/MOQTime.htm see for yourself greetzz, Adrie. 2010/11/5 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > > > An experiment published in 1990 suggests that Zeno was right. In this > experiment, scientists demonstrated the quantum equivalent of the adage that > "a watched pot doesn't boil." This behavior, the "quantum Zeno effect," > turns out to be a function of observation. "It seems,"said physicist Peter > Coveney, "that the act of looking at an atom prevents it from changing". > Theoretically, if a nuclear bomb were watched intently enough -- that is, if > you could check its atoms every million trillionth of a second -- it > wouldn't explode. Bizarre? The problem lies not in the experiments but in > our way of thinking about time. Biocentrism is the only comprehensible way > to explain these results, which are only "weird" in the context of the > existing paradigm. > > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/is-death-the-end-new-expe_b_774814.html?view=print > > > > ___ > > > 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
