Sure, I can your question in a thousand ways, and I will just choose one for now. Just remember, all I can provide are words.
To begin with "faster" neutrinos do not violate Einstein's equivalency of energy and mass. He simply says that energy "is" mass, they are just expressed in different units. That is why one needs to multiply the units of mass by a very big constant (number). This of course falls out of current math, which as such is a static theory of this day and age. Einstein stated that the speed of light can be held constant, which means that time must change for the mathematics will work out. The relativity of time has been supported with empirical experiments, and is of utmost importance in things such as position determination through satellite triangulation amongst a number of other useful things. This does not make it True, it just makes it useful (big difference). In terms of "faster", that is all up to debate in terms of how to present the results. The math dominates here, and could be extremely naive. Let me ask you this: can anything go slower than zero? If not, why not? Let me first address your triage of definitions for DQ. The undefinable nature of DQ simply means that there are not enough words to define DQ. I have said that the same applies to "dog" in that there are not enough words to define your conception of dog. There is nothing mysterious about something being undefinable since the applications of static quality to dynamic phenomenon (such as a dog) are impossible. When the concept of unknowable simply means that DQ cannot be known through static quality. That is, it is not something that you can read about and intellectually know. As stated before by somebody: We all know what Quality is. This is not the intellectual form of quality, but the real form of it. I am sure you can apprehend this through your meditation. So, DQ cannot be intellectualized. This is nothing new, God cannot be intellectualized either. God is presented through ones own experience, not though a book. If you don't like the static word God, then let's use Nature. Nature cannot be intellectualized, it is known through our direct relationship with it. The same can be said for Love; love cannot be intellectualized either. In fact greater than 99% of the things that we experience are outside of our simple intellectualization. Indeterminate means that it can not be determined. If we use measurement as a form of determination, then we could say that DQ is outside of science's capabilities. Most of what we experience cannot be measured, since measuring it would not make any sense. Speaking of senses, our senses are very narrow; in terms of what there is they cannot almost detect nothing. Our vision is restricted to such a narrow portion of wavelengths, that mathematically this puts this range pretty close to zero if the actual wavelengths available are from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. Sound is another example, we can hear a very narrow range of frequencies. The senses of touch are biophysically confined by size, and the sense of smell and taste are restricted to specific chemical interactions; only those which are needed for survival. The number of theoretically possible sensations in these areas are, of course close to infinite. So the fact that DQ cannot be determined simply puts it in the same category as most everything else around us. My question to you here is: Is DQ unimaginable? Now I will get briefly to the concept of entanglement and DQ. You yourself have touched on this topic in the past, so I am not sure why you are asking me. Intuitively you seem to know how entanglement plays a part in our experience here. One example would be the absence of time in entanglement. That is, entangled particles are such that each changes instantaneously accordingly across a distance. (Of course Einstein had another way to express distance in terms of gravity, but I will not bore you with that). As you may have experienced from your meditations, time disappears. It is not uncommon to be aware of this. In fact, though simple meditation, it is possible to live completely in the present. Of course memory does not exist in this state so it is impossible to relate the experience afterwards except though some new age-like presentation. Egotists such as Eckhart Tolle have tried to explain this as living in the moment. This form of understanding may have its positives, but it is also misleading. If people have a fixed idea of what it is to live in the present, then they will never find it since it is not intellectual and one cannot point to "living in the moment". DQ must reside outside of time, otherwise it becomes static, or subservient to time. DQ creates time as our static representations of such, it cannot be created in time just like the painting cannot create the landscape. Carl Jung's concept of synchronicity comes close to entanglement and may both be metaphysically somewhat equivalent. He did not seem to take it to its obvious conclusion, that being that everything is entangled and happens simultaneously. Cause and effect therefore disappear while in DQ. Some have likened Jung's synchronicity to the Tao. I would agree that if one understands one of these, they can form an understanding of the other. Pirsig himself saw this when his intuitive understanding of Quality could fit in and replace the sections where Tao is written in the Tao te Ching. Explaining all of this understanding of his is of course difficult, and he obviously falls short as can be seen by where some posts on this forum go with the subject, and how Lila was not understood by most people. Improved analogies are important for MoQ to catch on. Any analogy of DQ which is not what it is not, from you, would be most welcome here. Remember these are all analogies used for the purposes of rhetoric. Nothing can be ultimately proven (since there is nothing to prove), but people can come to agreement. So there we have it, entanglement led to synchronicity which led to Tao which led to DQ; I hope what I write strikes some bell within you. I am not sure if you meant that DQ should be discussed on Science Friday. We are a long way from that. Physics is much more confining than it is liberating. I could say that I am Anti-Science (said in the same provocative way that Pirsig stated that MoQ is Anti-theist). But this would only be in relationship by our current infatuation and bewitchment by science. Many people think that science is real rather than just a creation of ours. Again, science is the painting and not the landscape. Cheers, Mark On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:46 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > DQ is unknowable, undivideable & undefinable - unpatterned. I wonder how you > think entanglement relates to DQ? The announcement is interesting. Such > excitement! I hope there are more programs addressing it. Maybe it will be > a topic on npr's Science Friday. > > > Marsha > > > > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 10:52 AM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> I heard parts of it while I was working. An interesting little bit on sq. >> Use it for what it is worth to you. The idea of entanglement already shows >> "influences" outside of time. This "spooky action from a distance" suggests >> that an action on a particle here is matched by a change, in particle light >> years away, instantaneously. This concept has more relevance to MoQ and the >> "nature" of DQ, IMO. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> On Sep 29, 2011, at 8:04 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> --- On Point with Tom Ashbrook --- >>> >>> E=mc2 is the one piece of physics everybody knows. Einstein’s special >>> relativity theory. 1905. Says nothing can travel faster than the speed of >>> light. It’s the basis, the bedrock, of modern physics. And last week, out >>> of the big CERN facility in Europe, the stunning news that some speedy >>> little neutrinos have been clocked traveling faster. Faster than the speed >>> of light. >>> >>> To physicists, that’s more than an earthquake. Most are skeptical so far. >>> Waiting for confirmation. But if it were true? Time travel fans, start >>> your engines. >>> >>> This hour On Point: speedy neutrinos rock Einstein’s world. >>> >>> >>> http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/09/29/tracking-neutrinos (Audio available >>> shortly after broadcast) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:57 AM, MarshaV wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> NYT: >>>> >>>> >>>> The physics world is abuzz with news that a group of European physicists >>>> plans to announce Friday that it has clocked a burst of subatomic >>>> particles known as neutrinos breaking the cosmic speed limit — the speed >>>> of light — that was set by Albert Einstein in 1905. >>>> >>>> If true, it is a result that would change the world. But that “if” is >>>> enormous. >>>> >>>> Even before the European physicists had presented their results — in a >>>> paper that appeared on the physics Web site arXiv.org on Thursday night >>>> and in a seminar atCERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, on >>>> Friday — a chorus of physicists had risen up on blogs and elsewhere >>>> arguing that it was way too soon to give up on Einstein and that there was >>>> probably some experimental error. Incredible claims require incredible >>>> evidence. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=neutrinos&st=cse >>>> >>>> ___ >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
