On Nov 27, 2011, at 1:55 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
I take this to mean that you did not understand the quote. I can only deduce
that you do not understand any of the quotes that you submit since you can't
answer any questions that I ask about a quote. I will treat the rest of you
scribble above in that light.
Ta ta,
Mark
>
>
>>
>> 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
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
