FOR MAGNUS, ROGER, PLATT, DAVID (STRUAN MENTIONED) AND GROUP:
MAGNUS wrote:
> This is where the MoQ parts with Bohr. The MoQ says that the moon
> does not exist independent of observation. The observer however,
> doesn't have to be a person, or an instrument made by man. It can
> be any static pattern. The moon is very real to a meteor coming too
> close, it makes the meteor stop quite abruptly.
> A Quality Event is not exactly the same as a quantum event. A
> Quality Event can be of four distinct types (guess which :),
> whereas a quantum event only translates to inorganic Quality
> Events.
You made my day Magnus. Finally a solid MOQ-based statement. The
renewed quantum physics debate; Roger airing Schr�dinger's cat, the
Einstein-Bohr moon observation etc, seemed to end in the stale
classical standpoints of idealism and materialism, but then you
wielded the MOQ knife. Great!
As a matter of fact I did not see the obvious at first, and was into
a longwinded entry about the impossibility of mixing two
fundamentally different world views as is tried done in riddles based
on the QM: trees falling silently (why falling at all?), cats in
containers, all of which invokes the mind of SOM "creating" the world
upon observation - something that immediately brings in the dreaded
everytning-in-the-mind ghost.
You are right: the MOQ solution is even more radical than Bohr's: the
four static levels are the warrantors for reality at their respective
planes, something that cuts the quantum knot in one blow. And yes
Bohr's last resort is definitely SOMish, it must necessarily be: the
MOQ had not been created when he made his statements ....in the
twenties (?).
ROGER
will probably protest this, he has given us excerpts from Kitaro
Nishida's book from 1911 which is an anticipation of the MOQ in
Roger's opinion. And yes, it was quite impressive, but I think
Nishida was regarded a religious mystic by his contemporaries and
that his ideas had little impact upon the hard sciences. Well, I
wouldn't bet on the MOQ doing better (at that time), but its strength
is that it goes to the very bottom - deeper than religions do - and
starts by putting the bell on the cat (as we say) by naming the
western world view as subject-object metaphysics. Once that is done
the spell is broken. Look how important it is for the MOQ-hunters to
declare the SOM as "something that no-one subscribes to" (Strawson),
and how Struan (for those who don't know his merits) refuses that
there is a mind-matter problem (The Sperry piece) and how few
understands the enormity of the metaphysical shift that Pirsig stands
for, but continue to speak about moons and other phenomena as "out
there in SOMe real sense".
PLATT wrote:
> Like Bodvar I read your recommended article, "lmplications of a
> Fundamental Consciousness." It's an excellent overview of post-modernist
> "panpsychic" thinking about the mind-matter problem. I kept nodding
> agreement with what the author wrote.
> Way back at the beginning of the LS, the question was asked, "Are
> atoms aware?" Based on the writings of Pirsig, most of those involved in
> the discussion at that time agreed that they were. "Fundamental
> Consciousness" confirms that view.......snip
and ROGER commented: (humorously)
> They are? Boy do I feel dumb. I just finished argueing they don't exist, and
> now I find they have awareness.
Platt will certainly answer for himself, but I think you
misunderstood him a little. These are subtle points but the
"fundamental consciousness" is IMHO something that pervades all
existence; another name for Quality! During our first wrestling with
this elusive topic I uttered something like: "Everything is mind
(consciousness/awareness) or nothing is". I am convinced that Platt
did not mean an intellectual matter particle, but more in Magnus'
sense; each value level is the "observer/creator" of its
corresponding reality (to which you commented):
> I agree with your observations that quantum reality should not be extended to
> classical value patterns, that quantum events are only one of 4 types of QE,
> and that that with no value at any level a thing does not exist. In fact we
> can't even conceve of it. For conceiving it creates it as an intellectual
> pattern.
We conceive (experience) the intellectual patterns, but are (of) all
patterns and experience the notorious moon inorganically -
gravitation for ex. Biologically the menstruation cycle is linked
to it and socially it has played all sorts of god-roles ...people
still become lunatic :-o.
DAVID wrote:
> Pirsig is not trying to marry MOQ to Bohr's philosophy, as Struan
> suggests. Instead he sees Bohr trying to rescue physics from absurdity.
> Pirsig believes his MOQ has provided concepts and other intelledtual
> tools that allow him to finish what Bohr could not. Bohr didn't refuse
> to speculate about what was beyond the threshold of observability, as
> Struan claims. He couldn't find the words and concepts to come to any
> translatable conclusions, but Heisenberg testifies to Bohr's persistent
> and passionate speculations.
I agree. Not (only) because you gave Struan a lesson, but because you
have seen the MOQ solution to the quandary. I think we have a pretty
good consensus about this matter ....for the first time in our
annals. :-)
Bodvar
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
