Hi boys and girls Just taking a look at John Polkinghorne's book on quantum theory, he agrees with me that Aristotle's concept of potentia is one worth considering when trying to make sense of quantum theory. I also think it is conceptually useful for understanding and describing experience too as I've explained. Polkinghorne goes on to quote Heisenberg:
"In experiments about atomic events we have to do with things that are facts, with phenomenon that are just as real as any phenomenon in daily life. But the atoms or elementary particles are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than things of facts." Interesting! Science has to deal with elementary particles but they possess un-actualised properties/qualities, i.e. potentialities, this leads to confusion and doubt about how real they are -even a thinker like Heisenberg (not bad company for DMB). But Polkinghorne goes on: "An electron does not all the time possess a definite position or momentum, but rather it possesses the potentiality for exhibiting one or other of these if a measurement turnsa one of these potentiality into an actuality. I would disagree with Heisenberg in thinking that this fact makes an electron "not as real" as a table or a chair. The electron simply enjoys a different kind of reality, appropriate to its nature.If we are to know things as they are, we must be prepared to know them as they actually are, on their own terms, so to speak. It is intelligibility rather than objectivity that is the clue to reality...." This may be radical thinking. But nonsense? Are you on such firm or familiar ground here DMB with your zero value certainties? David M 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
