Hi James and Group:
James wrote:
> I'm not an expert on physics, but AFAIK this assertion is not correct. Aside
> from a general wariness about stating that physics has ever PROVED anything,
> the quantum theory simply claims that "observation" is an event
> fundamentally different from the normal non-observation. It is a collapse of
> the waveform, rather than a Schroedinger propagation of it. I don't see that
> this proves that reality is dependent of observation at all. Electrons seem
> to orbit nuclei just fine without observation, for example.
I'm no expert on physics either. What consititutes "proof" is a
separate issue we can discuss sometime if you wish. I support my
contention that reality is observation-dependent by the following
quote from Pirsig's paper, "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values."
"The most striking similarity between the Metaphysics of Quality and
Complementarity is that this Quality event corresponds to what Bohr
means by "observation." When the Copenhagen Interpretation
"holds that the unmeasured atom is not real, that its attributes are
created or realized in the act of measurement," (Herbert xiii) it is
saying something very close to the Metaphysics of Quality. The
observation creates the reality."
I recognize there are other interpretations of quantum phenomenon
including the Many Worlds Hypothesis, but the Cophenhagen
Interpretation Pirsig refers to above is supported by most physicists.
> But it doesn't really answer it any better. While Robert's photosynthesis
> argument isn't complete, we can explain the growing tree by marshalling a
> greater supply of scientific data. Photosynthesis requires light, and in a
> competitive environment, some photosynthetic creatures will randomly evolve
> to expend some energy in order to reach a more advantageous niche vis-a-vis
> the primary light source - the sun.
>
> The MOQ seems to claim that it's explanation is that biology is a higher
> evolutionary level than inorganic matter - so therefore it can defy its
> laws. That's not very satisfactory. I mean, it's an interesting idea, but
> hardly an explanation of 'why'.
The MOQ explanation is much more comprehensive than you
suggest. Chapter 11 of Lila is almost entirely devoted to the subject.
Your randomly evolving photosynthetic creatures expending energy
to reach a better niche hardly explains why they "reach" for the sun
or do anything at all. Pirsig's "evolutionary morality" explains the
"why" of their efforts thoroughly and IMHO convincingly, especially
considering the lack of alternatives.
> I thought the MOQ's morality was NOT anchored in reason, but rather viewed
> as a synthesis of different levels of morality, intellectuality (i.e.
> reason) being just the highest (one might ask if there might theoretically
> be higher forms). Pirsig states pretty plainly, and on numerous occasions,
> in Lila, that the amorality of the 20th century can be explained by the rise
> of intellectualism.
To quote Pirsig as he further explains his evolutionary morality in
Lila, Chapter 13:
"We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of reason."
Pirsig doesn't object to intellectualism. If he did, he'd sabotage his
his own metaphysics. What he objects to is intellectualism that
assumes values are non-empirical, relative, and subjective. His battle
is not against intellect, but against commonly held initial assumptions
which modern intellect has mistakingly adopted, such as the world
exists independent of observation (-:
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
