In reflection to the link under this http://phys.org/news/2013-05-classical-physics-emerge-quantum.html
This is the arvix/pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.4632v2.pdf experiments of this kind are of the utmost importance to understand quantum and particle physiks. Nothing of this material(in its mathematical form) is understandable for normal people,without some explanation. Most of these experiments take a start as pure monte carlo-events based on very carefully made predictions..(this is only for the happy few capable of understanding the behaviour of all particle's of the standard model, and the reason of their existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method Do understand, please ,that Monte Carlo or real!...,Monte Carlo mostly is preceiding the discovery of the real event, its predictive power is enormeously;most of the work done at Los Alamos was done the Monte Carlo-way, before the "boom" occured at the trinity test. The value of the Monte Carlo tool is incredibel.Most parameters are variables depending on the model. I'm thinking about a way to make this better understandable, pfff.....difficult. best is a visual representative i suppose.Thomasz Barszczak's ccplus visualisations come to mind. But do keep in mind, monte carlo or not,this has nothing to do with" Hypothetical",but with mathemathical assumptions based on expierience, and what was previously known. http://www.ps.uci.edu/~tomba/sk/tscan/pictures.html Most of the neutrino events were Monte Carlo only before their discovery,they did not became real due to the Monte Carlo predictions, the became recognised. A good way to understand the colorspots is to know how the Pmt's work to detect the real events. http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/gallery/index-e.html Most of the pictures here show the pmt's and the size of the reactor. the pmt's themselves under this. http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/gallery/build/sk_build23.jpg ----------------------- Is some of this related to the work of Pirsig?-------Yes and no, 1) Mc Watt is mentioning a muon event in his inquiry" into the metaphysiks of..". Pirsig played with the idea that we are in need of a fift level, the quantum level probably, but was doubting it at the same time. He is a writer, not a theorethical physicist. And of course , do we have to understand the fifth level on top of the pyramid,inorganic , organic, biological,etc....or determining the foundations of the pyramid, simply to begin with, as a level before the inorganic?-----quality emerging from chaos?..... in this sense, the provided article from the first link is showing a glimpse of order emerging from chaos on a quantum-level. Monte Carlo...... 2)No, The fifth level is containing or incorporating all levels,and all levels are emerging from the level under everything, but this level is above all others as the framework in wich we live and think,very strange,but strangeness is only one of the aspects of reality. Hmmm, nothing but arcane .....etc,"arcane",to be understood as abstracted reality? sorry for the archaic and rudimentair syntaxis, bad rhetoric and dialectics, this is not my native tongue,i speak and master German,French, Flamish, Dutch,Turkish(my wife is Turkish), and 'Fries',(my mother was Dutch, father German decent) but my English is crappy, to say the least. -------------------- Toughts, Toughts, Buchanan? give me some feedback dude, your last post was one of the best you ever made and probably you are not even aware of it.Become aware!! Hypothetically ety...... 2013/5/25 David Morey <[email protected]> > Hi Adrie > > Thanks for the below, this may be of interest too: > > http://phys.org/news/2013-05-classical-physics-emerge-quantum.html > > Regards > David M > > > ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > > >David Morey to Dan. > > > > > >DM: Once again you keep projecting on to me things I don't say or think. > >Yes experienced-reality as I call it is the primary reality, it is > >experience, > >it is reality, it is not a representation of some other reality, > >it is primary, we do not experience objects that are somehow separate > >from us, everything we experience makes up what we are, what we > >experience, it encompasses everything we can talk about, etc. My point > >is that it is odd to say that this is all there is to reality, that > reality > >does > >not and cannot exist beyond the realm of human experience. If you say > this, > >and DMB seems to be saying this too, you are creating an existential > >prison, because using the power of thought and I take science as the > >exemplar of thinking outside of and beyond our primary experience (as > >brilliantly described and conceptualised by the MOQ I would say), we > >can discuss and speculate on processes, experiences, histories, events, > >etc they go beyond direct human experience. These exist in previous > >ages of history or in different parts of the cosmos without being > >created (as you put it) by being situated within human experience. > >This is not to put these events and processes and histories in terms > >of SOM but to see that there are many other unfolding of SQ and > >DQ in the cosmos that go beyond human experience and human > >experience of SQ and DQ. Sure we only know of these other forms of > >SQ and unfolding DQ via our human experience but they clearly go > >beyond this, we speculate and can test via empiricism that our toys > >go on existing even when we hide them in the cupboard, and we can > >accept the evidence we have for our parents having lives before we > >were born, and for the existence of a period of time before there > >were any human beings. This is not to introduce SOM back into MOQ, > >as I do not suggest we are here adding any separate objects into > >our experience, rather by reason we must deal in the MOQ with > >processes/unfolding of SQ and DQ that go beyond either our individual > >or species based experience. Yes I reject that there are any experienced > >primary qualities that SOM is based on, we have only SQ and DQ > >qualities that SOM calls secondary qualities, but for me MOQ does not have > >to be an anthropocentric philosophy, because it can accept that there is > >a reality of SQ and DQ that goes beyond the human, this is what MOQ > >can reason on the basis of its conceptualisation of primary experience. > >Otherwise MOQ becomes Kantianism without SOM language, MOQ then simply > >gives us Kantianism without subject and objects by seeing > >things-in-themselves > >as non-existent, so that all reality is human reality, unable to exist > >without > >human co-relationism. Heidegger probably makes the same mistake, as > >he also replaces Kant's SOM approach with a Dasein formulated > understanding > >of experience, but equally he is unable to offer a way to make sense of > >time before human conscious experience. You are so barking up the wrong > tree > >when you think my challenge is bring back SOM into the MOQ, continental > >philosophy rejected SOM years ago, very old hat stuff now, but the problem > >with continental philosophy is its disconnect from science, and MOQ is > >falling into the same trap I believe given this anthropocentrism you and > >DMB seem to be advocating. Science has its own dualist, materialist, > >SOM problems, and MOQ and its good approach to SQ and DQ could > >be good conceptual tools for addressing these problems in science, > >but the isolation in human experience as if there are no other unfoldings > >of SQ and DQ beyond what humans are experiencing prevents any > >hope of engagement between the MOQ and science it seems to me. > >I am not saying this position that you are taking is worthless, it is an > >improvement on SOM, but it isolates MOQ from science in exactly the > >same way as continental philosophy is isolated. The Speculative Realist > >school of thought is very new and very active and is precisely opening > >up this problem and addressing this issue by putting realism back into > >philosophy and conceptual thought. Where MOQ says DQ, SR is talking > >about openness and contingency as disallowing determinism and > >the illusion that the world and experience can be understood in terms > >of just laws or justv objects or even just SQ I might add. > > > >comment Adrie > > > >find the flaws or waffle around them > > > > > > > > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1658/1/Anthropic_Explanations_in_Cosmology_.pdf > > > >Idea's come first, idea's produce matter, idea's generate the world we > live > >in.... > >was a proposal made by John Wheeler in it from bit. > >He called it the participatory anthropic priciple > > > > > > > > > >It was never accepted,and later on,quantum physiks came up with the proof > >that a single > >elektron can act as an observer,to collaps the wavefunction. > >there is no need for the universe so to speak, that there are observers to > >make reality > >happen. > >the idea is thus abandoned. > > > >I made a statement once , that quantum physiks is partially high-end > >philosophy and to avoid > >that any or every som dictum is popped,i strongly suggest to read at the > >end of the article, > > > >""instituto de filosofia, Madrid"" > > > >and in the header the name of the man who wrote the article, Jesus > Mosterin > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Moster%C3%ADn > > > >kind regards, Adrie > > > > > > > >2013/5/1 David Morey <[email protected]> > > > >> Hi Dan > >> > >> Exactly, the MOQ and Robert Pirsig accept evolution, problem is > evolution > >> is not compatible with anthropocentrism or experience seen as an > idealistic > >> prison, so maybe reading these errors into the MOQ is very bad > philosophy I > >> am suggesting. Thanks for the concern, can assure you the only thing > that > >> has broken down is a very poor conception of what the MOQ is saying. > >> > >> All the best > >> David M > >> > >> Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >Hello everyone > >> > > >> >On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, David Morey < > [email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi MOQers > >> >> > >> >> Does SQ and DQ act to give us evolution and create professors > >> >> long before anyone ever gets around to coceptualising these > >> >> qualities in human experience? The guy who wrote Lila > >> >> seems to think this: > >> >> > >> > > >> >Dan: > >> > > >> >Come on, David. No one is saying that the MOQ denies evolution. What a > >> >completely crazy thing to say. > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> "The law of gravity, for example, is perhaps the most ruthlessly > static > >> >> pattern of order in the universe. So, correspondingly, there is no > >> single > >> >> living thing that does not thumb its nose at that law day in and day > >> out. > >> >> One could almost define life as the organized disobedience of the > law of > >> >> gravity. One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys > >> this > >> >> law is a measure of its degree of evolution. Thus, while the simple > >> >> protozoa just barely get around on their cilia, earthworms manage to > >> >> control their distance and direction, birds fly into the sky, and man > >> goes > >> >> all the way to the moon. > >> >> A similar analysis could be made with other physical laws such as the > >> >> Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it seemed to Phaedrus that if one > >> >> gathered together enough of these deliberate violations of the laws > of > >> the > >> >> universe and formed a generalization from them, a quite different > >> theory of > >> >> evolution could be inferred. If life is to be explained on the basis > of > >> >> physical laws, then the overwhelming evidence that life deliberately > >> works > >> >> around these laws cannot be ignored. The reason atoms become > chemistry > >> >> professors has got to be that something in nature does not like laws > of > >> >> chemical equilibrium or the law of gravity or the laws of > >> thermodynamics or > >> >> any other law that restricts the molecules' freedom. They only go > along > >> >> with laws of any kind because they have to, preferring an existence > that > >> >> does not follow any laws whatsoever." > >> >> > >> >> Clearly DQ and SQ can be used to tell a cosmic story that is > pre-human > >> >> experience and is not in an anthropocentric prison. > >> >> I suppose the usual suspects will claim they were never making > >> >> anthropocentric restrictions about such reasonable knowledge. > >> >> If only they were not so confused in the first place. Funny how post > >> >> modernists like Matt used to get blown off, now that the > >> >> MOQ seems to have turned into a form of anti-realist post modern > >> >> philosophising round here. What a shame, can anyone > >> >> help to save the MOQ from this terrible fate? Is quality not real? If > >> only > >> >> DQ is real and DQ cannot be defined how can there > >> >> be truth, SQ can be judged but apparently it is not real as it is not > >> >> experienced. Yet Pirsig embraces truth. What has gone wrong > >> >> since I was last here? > >> > > >> > > >> >Dan: > >> >I am unsure what your problem is--perhaps you are suffering a meltdown; > >> >those things have been known to happen here--but it is apparent us > talking > >> >is doing no one any good. > >> > > >> >Thank you and good luck, > >> > > >> >Dan > >> > > >> >http://www.danglover.com > >> >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 > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >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 > 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
