The Ontology of Quantum Mechanics
John Jones
(QM) is to account for the way that things make an appearance.
Concerning that, here are the two theories of quantum mechanics:
1) The first QM (and Newtonian) theory is that there are objects. These
can be hidden and can be revealed. This is like our everyday experience.
2) The second QM theory is that there are no objects to be hidden or
revealed. Instead, appearance is everywhere but has varying degrees of a
property called "probability". The problem with this idea is essentially
grammatical. But if we must grammatically think of "appearance" itself
as an object with properties here, then 2) begins to look like 1).
- That's pretty much all there is to Quantum mechanics and its
description of objects. 2) seems to reduce to 1). In which case, the
"hidden variable theory" or 1), above, rules the roost in some form or
other.
We are not finished yet, however. First note that the quantum theory (2,
above) promotes the universal accessibility of existence, and presents a
grammatical ambiguity of the term "appearance" as being both appearance
and an object. This allows the QM theorist to embrace clairvoyance, and
by default consciousness, as it is also universal and both object of
appearance and appearance.
bigfl...@gmail.com
If you juxtapose many references from old masters, such as Rumi,it is
not difficult to recognise the language of quantum mechanics.
This is why it is important to separate religiosity from the
metaphysical (for QM and metaphysical are synonymous..you are correct
re clairvoyance and the other 23 sub sets).
Irony of ironies,those with religious attachments will block the
'real' spirituality, metaphysics being a significant component.
Religions have always been about control of the masses, and have been
valid in many cases, and equally as invalid (if you see religious wars
as invalid).
Many Catholic members of the priest craft for example 'still' warn
followers against such investigation, citing 'the devils work'.If fear
is evoked, they are correct to make such warnings,because one has to
be well grounded to make such discoveries.
A parallel (not recommended today) is the way many indigenous
'students' had to go through demanding initiations before being
exposed to the deeper secrets.
BOfL
Uncle Al
>
> The essential metaphysical and ontological problem for Quantum mechanics
> (QM) is to account for the way that things make an appearance.
Physics models observation with mathematics that obtains testable
predictions. If you want to know 'why," talk with God. In the whole
of human history across the entire planet not one deity has
volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission.
If you want a working flush toilet, wholly leave god out of it or it
will splash in your face every time you hit the plunger. Test of
faith! (and test of Enviro-whiner low flush toilets).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
John Jones
#
What's your take on things?
John Jones
> John Jones wrote:
>> The essential metaphysical and ontological problem for Quantum mechanics
>> (QM) is to account for the way that things make an appearance.
> [snip crap]
>
> Physics models observation with mathematics that obtains testable
> predictions. If you want to know 'why," talk with God.
Ha Ha. Great to see that some god makes an appearance. You should host a
show.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 5:54 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > BOfL
>
> #
> What's your take on things?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We create at a materialistic level for survival and also to engage our
artistic creativity. We have a firm common and basic understanding of
food and shelter.
The artistic component facilitates a bio feedback loop. Necessary to
validate our individual creative capacity, part of the search for our
individual identity.The creator identifying with the creation. This is
where the 'quantum' reality takes over. We generally place the
subjective value in the 'market place', looking ,again, for our
individual self recognition, by comparison, whether it be by athletic
to financial and even professional achievement.
Look how many identify with their possesions for example. Willing to
jump off tall buildings when their net worth drops!
I suspect this is where the ongoing conflict comes from, regarding the
'thing in itself'argument. The more one identifies with the 'thing'
the greater the quantum 'belief', being a subtle construct which, as
we know can have some very significant effects in the 'real' world.
In a few words,an excellent example of one of the parallel universes
in which we each find ourself, the confusion of which creates a great
motivation to get to the real truth (of self).
I remember many years ago when a scientist mentor brought up quantum
for the first time, and I remember saying "so thats how the scientist
see the next subtle plane :-).
BOfL
Zinnic
wrote:
> On Nov 15, 7:58 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 5:54 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> SNIP
> In a few words,an excellent example of one of the parallel universes
> in which we each find ourself, the confusion of which creates a great
> motivation to get to the real truth (of self).
> BOfL
Eliminating 34 words from the above leaves the "we" you so abhor.
Eliminating 35 words clarifies its meaningful content!
bigfl...@gmail.com
Boy , you really are losing the plot.... we 'each'. As in , "we" each
overcome obstacles. Abhor? Want to put any other words in my mouth?
Your level of response speaks volumes about your creativity
biofeedback loop.
Indicative of a low level of enjoyment of life.Does that apply to you?
BOfL
Zinnic
My criticism was directed against the lack of meaning in what you
wrote. Explanation of your specific meaning would be more to the point
than your amateur 'psycho'analysis of my motivations.
bigfl...@gmail.com
So you decided to have a go at the context of the use of the word
"we". Some criticism.
> Explanation of your specific meaning would be more to the point
> than your amateur 'psycho'analysis of my motivations.
The explaination is there, and in spite of a constant Turtoni like
reaction, you suggest I should explain.
By the way, that wasnt psychoanalysis, is was a suggestion that such
attitudes you show, often can be the cause of a disatisfaction of
life.
If the cap fits, it may be time to get a new head.
BOfL
Zinnic
wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:01 pm,Zinnic<zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>
Snip
>
> By the way, that wasnt psychoanalysis, is was a suggestion that such
> attitudes you show, often can be the cause of a disatisfaction of
> life.
>
foundation, against anyone, including yourself.
>
> BOfL
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -