Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

31827Re: The paper

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Dec 29, 2004
      I am somewhat familiar with this material at least enough to discern
      the upshot of the proposed model. To me it is evidence of the
      neccessity of a new evolutionary leap; that is it hypothesizes a
      pre-existing level of acceptable development or a functional
      objectivizing quantum model which we as humans seem to patrticipate in
      the building and maintainance of; while at the same time that ongoing
      participation holds the potential for an unknown and new development.
      Mary has brought up the comparison of the physical to cognitive
      activity of the brain. I think in this model it would be safer to say
      it is the intuitive activity of the brain that is entranced by the
      existing level of quantum development and the cognitive function of
      the brain that holds the potential for unknown quantum development.
      Human development is thus not neccessarily enslaved to a pre-existing
      objectivising quantum model. First it is only the known or effect
      producing phenomenon that is immediately observable, and second given
      the time anomaly in quantum structures, unknown or surprise system
      wide evolutionary phenomena would not be observable until the observer
      had already evolved. Thus we are looking at and producing and changing
      yet participating in a constant flux of historical quantum events
      which will be restructured into a new and larger past in the event of
      a new known. This proposed model does not fail to allow for infinite
      expansion *which is the real failure of empiricism. The fact that we
      are learning to understand quantum relativity constitutes an event
      horizon. As for cognitive individuality: the event would only be
      immediately observable to the individuals who caused it. Nothing would
      apparently change for anyone elses quantum reality. Thus the
      possibility exists that some humans have already evolved beyond us and
      we are not cognitively aware of it though our ongoing participation in
      the objectivising model is indicative that we to some degree intuit
      that fact. I will have more to say about collective assessment later
      but right now I'm already late for an appointment.

      "forever free"
      Trinidad Cruz

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@m...> wrote:
      > Mary, I read the paper and it seems I must be in a nearly transed
      > mind frame to begin to synthesize what he is talking about.
      > His statement that we never interact directly with quantum states
      > leaves me with a feeling of being manipulated by probability
      > distributions I do not select. It is as if only classical states can
      > be gleaned from any observation. This seems very predeterministic.
      > In such a case our own selection of observation through genetic
      > darwanism would preclude free will and force us to the "right road"
      > of discovery. In this case a preclivity such as Bookdocs interest
      > would be predetermined as a pointed state and force him into a
      > determined and proper state as derived by an irrational and oddly
      > selected quantum information spectrum. Why the collapse of competing
      > probabilities? Then again there is so much observational material
      > that is flawed from a classical viewpoint. Because an observation
      > survives are we to grant it validity? In the biblical loaves and
      > fishes observation the deciples hand out food from no apparent
      > source. That story has been repeated billions of times , still
      > impresses billions of minds, is derived from observation and is
      > bogus from the classical concepts of acquisation.
      > The author calls the paper an existential construct but in many
      > ways it makes us the whores of the irrational . Then again a
      > probability distrabution is also an observation of an idea in
      > graphic or numerical notation. We are relying on a guess about a
      > guess. Bill
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic