Hi Bo, Magnus, David, Roger and LS:
Every once in awhile (sadly, not often enough) a post arrives that marks
a milestone in the history of the Lila Squad. Such IMHO was Bo's post of
Jan. 29, 1999 which included not only Bo's perceptive comments but the
repetition of key paragraphs from Magnus and David that bear repeating:
> 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.
BO wrote:
> 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!
Yes, Magnus not only wielded the MOQ knife with precision in the
paragraph above, but also in the following paragraph from another post
he addressed to Lithien dated Jan. 29, 1999:
MAGNUS wrote:
"If observation means 'someONE observing something else,' there is a
problem. Because then, the reality for that someONE becomes only the
things that someONE observes. But if observation means "two patterns of
value engaged in a Quality Event," then the ice falling off the edges of the
Antarctic glacier a few seconds ago becomes as real as your reading
these words."
Those seeking to understand the MOQ revolution would do well to ponder
what Magnus's knife has revealed about "observation."
But there's more in Bo's post. In answering an inquiry from Roger, Bo
made a beautiful cut with his own MOQ knife:
ROGER wrote (in commenting on Platt's statement that atoms are aware):
> > They are? Boy do I feel dumb. I just finished argueing they don't exist, and
> > now I find they have awareness.
BO wrote:
> 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.
Right on, Bo. A clean cut.
Finally, David knifed into the Heisenberg-Bohr-Pirsig debate with a rapier
summary:
> 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.
Thanks Bo, Magnus and David for giving us a sharper understanding of
the MOQ.
Platt
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
