Hi Marsha,
I suspected you would come in with the Einstein analogy, its fully
googleable ("Great Googly Moogly" as Zappa once said). That is why I
used the phraseology that I did. Still, I did not determine your
reply.
Yes, Einstein tried to put Quality under the laws of physics. Quality
is not deterministic it is based on free will, all the way from us to
the photon. It is not based on chance, we do not throw the dice in
life. But, you already know that, I think.
Are you saying that Bell trumps Einstein, or did you just get the
quote from an "I'm feeling lucky" search? Well, Marsha, are you
feeling lucky? I am curious why you think that Bell's work created
failure for Einstein. If you place a quote, you are bound to be asked
questions about it. Perhaps it was just mindless (deterministic)
posting. Only you can tell me.
Mark
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:55 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "..., it has been repeated _at nauseam_ that Einstein's main objection
> to quantum theory was its lack of determinism: Einstein could not abide a
> God who plays dice. Buy what annoyed Einstein was not lack of determinism,
> it was the apparent failure of _locality_ in the theory on account of
> entanglement. Einstein recognized that, given the predictions of quantum
> theory, only a deterministic theory could eliminate this non-locality, and so
> he realized that a local theory must be deterministic. But it was the
> locality that mattered to him, not the determinism. We now understand, due
> to the work of Bell, that Einstein's quest for a local theory was bound to
> fail.
>
> (Maudlin, Tim, 'Quantum Non-Locality & Relativity')
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 1:40 PM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi Ron,
>> Yes, usefulness is key. Let's throw out the useless. Where do we start?
>>
>> The usefulness of wave functions is yet to be determined. Sure they are
>> part of the "theory", in fact, they are the theory. A new mathematical
>> model is needed for particle physics, to get away from statistics. That
>> would be useful. But, how would current physicists get their funding?
>>
>> Christ is a useful function in the theory of Christianity too. Its
>> usefulness seems more common than wavelets. Such usefulness has killed many
>> more people than the nuclear bomb, so far...
>>
>> Let's not tie MoQ to statistics. "God" does not throw dice, and this is not
>> a casino. Free will is not a matter of chance.
>>
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2011, at 8:11 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Robert Pirsig:
>>>>
>>>> "This is the usual argument against the philosophic idealism
>>>> that is part of the MOQ so it had better be answered here.
>>>> It is similar to the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and
>>>> nobody hears it, does it make a sound?” The historic
>>>> answer of the idealists is, “What tree?”
>>>> "In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence
>>>> of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would
>>>> vanish if nobody were there. Of course, it wouldn’t vanish! It has
>>>> already been presupposed.
>>>> "This presupposition is a standard logical fallacy known as a
>>>> hypothesis contrary to fact. It is the “hypothetical question” that is
>>>> always thrown out of court as inadmissible." [LILA'S CHILD annotation 80]
>>>>
>>>> Ron comments:
>>>> In the context of "the historical response of the Idealists" (of which is
>>>> part
>>>> of the MoQ)it is to be clear about the context of the conversation, since
>>>> a hypothosis always deals with presuppositions it only makes sense to
>>>> follow through
>>>> in the logical consistancy within the context and that they only work as
>>>> hypothisis if
>>>> they are taken to follow the patterns observed in experience.
>>>> The people throwing out hypothisis based on the fact that they are
>>>> hypothisis are positivists
>>>> the aggressive sort which tends to take the tack that if it is not
>>>> directly observed
>>>> that it does not exist. Pirsig is saying that the type of question is
>>>> thrown out not hypothetical
>>>> questions in general.
>>>>
>>>> According to Pirsig that which has value exists. In that order, if a
>>>> hypothisis has value
>>>> (the sort of value that is consistent with experience) and has been tested
>>>> in experience
>>>> ie. trees make sounds when they fall and dog dishes continue to exist ,
>>>> then the hypothisis
>>>> certainly IS admissable because it also holds the power to make accurate
>>>> predictions in
>>>> experience.
>>>>
>>>> Positing that trees dont make sounds and dog dishes vanish run contrary to
>>>> patterns observed
>>>> in experience it is the logical fallacy which is the "hypothisis contrary
>>>> to fact" it is also a positivist
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>> ..Which begs the question as to why , exactly, Dan brings this into the
>>>> discussion with Matt to
>>>> support his contention. Unless Dan is saying that Pirsig is supporting a
>>>> positivist point of view
>>>> in regard to biography and historical context.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>>
>>> You have misunderstood the discussion, Ron. I didn't say that trees
>>> don't make sounds and dog dishes disappear. I asked what did Robert
>>> Pirsig mean by: what trees? I asked how to empirically verify the
>>> existence of trees or dog dishes when we don't experience them... when
>>> they are imaginary. You have miscontrued what I said. We are on
>>> completely different pages so far as I can tell.
>>>
>>> Thanks anyway,
>>>
>>> Ron:
>>> Yea, we are always on different pages when we disagree about anything.
>>>
>>> Asking how to verify, as I stated before, and what I believe Pirsig means,
>>> empirically, presupposed hypothetical trees, is " a standard logical
>>> fallacy known as a
>>> hypothesis contrary to fact. "
>>> Eliminating all hypotheisis because it can not be empirically verified
>>> (observed) is the
>>> position known as positivism. Steven Weinburg, a noted Quantum Physicist
>>> said this
>>> about positivism:
>>> "Wave functions are "real" for the same reasons quarks and symmetries are -
>>> because
>>> it is useful to include them in our theories".
>>>
>>> Pirsig says something similar:
>>> "In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence
>>> of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would
>>> vanish if nobody were there. Of course, it wouldn’t vanish! It has
>>> already been presupposed."
>>>
>>> In this light asking how to empirically verify presupposed trees is the
>>> problem
>>> it is a logical fallacy to even ask the question.
>>>
>>> ..thanks anyway
>>>
>>> ..
>>> 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
