On Nov 27, 2011, at 3:45 PM, 118 wrote:
> 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.
> Mark:
> Still, I did not determine your reply.
Marsha:
You have lots to say. Got any proof?
> Mark:
> 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.
Marsha:
Quality may be compared to quantum theory's non-locality. Static quality
exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns have no
independent existence. No hidden variables, only Quality.
> Mark:
> 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.
Marsha:
I'll let you dynamically auto-write your own replay so you can address anything
that comes to your mind. That's your normal mode isn't it?
Marsha
>
> 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
___
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
