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

The paper

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    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
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Trinidad Cruz
      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
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 29, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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
      • Mary Jo
        Bill, I tried reading it late last night which was a futile effort, but your comments are interesting. Off the cuff, (where did that come from?), I d say Zurek
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 29, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill, I tried reading it late last night which was a futile effort,
          but your comments are interesting. Off the cuff, (where did that come
          from?), I'd say Zurek is making a proposal which he acknowledges will
          take some time to prove. There are many levels of observation, many
          intensities, so perhaps the predeterministic aspects of his theory
          apply only to subliminal or automatic observations. Also, is a story
          about an observation the same as an observation? Overall, I'd say
          he's moving in the right direction, but as is typical with much of
          scientific explanation, it's far too complicated. There is probably a
          much simpler way to state his ideas. The concept of redundancy is
          absorbing my thoughts right now. He seems to say that the more
          observers there are, the more stable or fit the observed will be. I'm
          not sure I buy that. Would that mean that if more people were
          directly interested and absorbed in the floor of the Indian Ocean,
          there might not have been an earthquake and subsequent tsunami? Or is
          he saying that such macro events can't even be observed only
          witnessed from a skewed relativity? I actually prefer the math &
          physics of a revised solipsistic phenomenology which says that we
          each 'manufacture' a universe in our brains, which is afterall our
          subjective reality, and that we are each viewing our own copy, which
          is a kind of redundancy subject to individual misinterpretation.
          We're mimicking one another so that we can have an objective medium
          in which to communicate. If you look at how the brain receives and
          interprets what it observes, it's strictly an individual experience.
          Through language we can talk about what we're experiencing, try to
          explain it; but let's face it, it's not easy. It's a relativity
          problem. And if you throw in majorly flawed copies, due to biological
          damage, things get really complicated. Then it seems people really do
          live in separate universes. For me, words are the coin of the realm
          and the beginning of unlocking such fundamental explanations. How
          many people does it take to observe something before there is a
          consensus that it's real? Do we need to observe everything? Can we?
          Do we need to? Miles to go . . . but just a nanosecond away. Mary

          --- 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
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.