Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/06269084.549 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Friday 26 Jun 2009 08:45:49
Date:         Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:43:00 EDT
From:         Charles Stephenson 
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

-------------------------------1246020180
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve --
 
Whoops -- I believe I just now sent a blank message to everyone. Sorry. The 
tangible corner of my desk dictionary happened to come into contact with my 
computer's intelligent mouse. 
 
Speaking as a non-expert, I would prefer not to describe Q and R as 
incommensurate (having no common measuring standard). Isn't it fair to say that 
they both use a common mathematical measurement, the unit, to describe 
different aspects of reality? 
 
You are right to raise the issue of Newtonian versus quantum.
 
However, it appears that basic principles of Newtonian mechanics (that 
similarly charged particles attract each other -- the basis of gravity) also 
operate in the wave (quantum) state of energy. 
 
I would quite agree that moving up the scale of size, from energy to wave 
to particle, is easy to visualize; but, moving in the other direction may be, 
also. To move from the Newtonian to the quantum scale, doesn't one just 
keep dividing by two, while adding the factor of time? 
 
The quantum insight, as far as I am concerned, is just the addition of the 
factor of time to Newtonian duality. All questions now have three possible 
answers: yes, no, and maybe later. ("Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa 
est....")
 
Max Planck famously postulated that you could not subdivide (matter or 
energy in wave form) below a certain size, which corresponded to about the 
diameter of a photon (the normal unit of visibility).
 
Mathematical and theoretical considerations strongly suggest, as I have 
argued elsewhere, that vibrations of energy exist below the Planck level, all 
the way down to the merest string.
 
You would agree, Stephenson's insight was that there is no difference 
mathematically between objective and subjective. 
 
Freud had a colleague by the name of Brown, as well as one by the name of 
Jones. I am glad that Stephenson has you.
 
Charles.
**************Stay connected and tighten your budget with a great mobile 
device for under $20. Take a Peek! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1222405996x1201457362/aol?redir=http://www.getpeek.com/aol)

-------------------------------1246020180
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable





Steve --
 
Whoops -- I believe I just now sent a blank message to everyone. Sorr=
y. The tangible corner of my desk dictionary happened to come into contact=
 with my computer's intelligent mouse. 
 
Speaking as a non-expert, I would prefer not to describe Q and R as=
 incommensurate (having no common measuring standard). Isn't it fair to sa=
y that they both use a common mathematical measurement, the unit, to descr=
ibe different aspects of reality? 
 
You are right to raise the issue of Newtonian versus quantum.
 
However, it appears that basic principles of Newtonian mechanics=
 (that similarly charged particles attract each other -- the basis of grav=
ity) also operate in the wave (quantum) state of energy. 
 
I would quite agree that moving up the scale of size, from energy to=
 wave to particle, is easy to visualize; but, moving in the other directio=
n may be, also. To move from the Newtonian to the quantum scale, doesn't=
 one just keep dividing by two, while adding the factor of time? 
 
The quantum insight, as far as I am concerned, is just the addition=
 of the factor of time to Newtonian duality. All questions now have three=
 possible answers: yes, no, and maybe later. ("Omnia Gallia in tres pa=
rtes divisa est....")
 
Max Planck famously postulated that you could not subdivide (matter=
 or energy in wave form) below a certain size, which corresponded to about=
 the diameter of a photon (the normal unit of visibility).
 
Mathematical and theoretical considerations strongly suggest, as I ha=
ve argued elsewhere, that vibrations of energy exist below the Planck leve=
l, all the way down to the merest string.
 
You would agree, Stephenson's insight was that there is no diffe=
rence mathematically between objective and subjective. 
 
Freud had a colleague by the name of Brown, as well as one by the nam=
e of Jones. I am glad that Stephenson has you.
 
Charles.

 
Stay connected and tighten your=
 budget with a great mobile device for under $20. Take a Peek!

-------------------------------1246020180--