Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/07019013.814 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Wednesday 1 Jul 2009 01:38:14
Date:         Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:36:14 -0400
From:         "BROWN, STEVEN" 
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

--_000_C6706E0E762Csbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Charlie,

I hope your birthday was a pleasant affair.

Briefly (as it's late and I have four dissertations to read)....  My unders=
tanding is that there is a discontinuity between classical and quantum theo=
ries in some respects, the latter displaying indeterminism, for instance.  =
There are some things that happen at the quantum level that not only don't =
but cannot happen at the classical level.  Attraction between charged parti=
cles may be one of the similarities, but there are also many differences.  =
I don't think that you can just divide by 2 and add time.  As to three poss=
ible answers (yes, no, maybe), quantum theory adds probabilism:  In the two=
-slit experiment, it cannot be known (not even "maybe") whether the electro=
n will go through the one or the other.  As to strings, the experts are str=
ongly divided as to whether there even are such things.  As a non-mathemati=
cian, I avoid taking sides.

Cheers,

Steve


On 6/26/09 8:43 AM, "Charles Stephenson"  wrote:

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 m=
y computer's intelligent mouse.

Speaking as a non-expert, I would prefer not to describe Q and R as incomme=
nsurate (having no common measuring standard). Isn't it fair to say that th=
ey both use a common mathematical measurement, the unit, to describe differ=
ent aspects of reality?

You are right to raise the issue of Newtonian versus quantum.

However, it appears that basic principles of Newtonian mechanics (that simi=
larly charged particles attract each other -- the basis of gravity) also op=
erate in the wave (quantum) state of energy.

I would quite agree that moving up the scale of size, from energy to wave t=
o 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 k=
eep 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 ener=
gy in wave form) below a certain size, which corresponded to about the diam=
eter of a photon (the normal unit of visibility).

Mathematical and theoretical considerations strongly suggest, as I have arg=
ued 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 mathe=
matically between objective and subjective.

Freud had a colleague by the name of Brown, as well as one by the name of J=
ones. 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! 


--_000_C6706E0E762Csbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Charlie,



I hope your birthday was a pleasant affair.



Briefly (as it’s late and I have four dissertations to read).... &nbs=
p;My understanding is that there is a discontinuity between classical and q=
uantum theories in some respects, the latter displaying indeterminism, for =
instance.  There are some things that happen at the quantum level that=
 not only don’t but cannot happen at the classical level.  Attra=
ction between charged particles may be one of the similarities, but there a=
re also many differences.  I don’t think that you can just divid=
e by 2 and add time.  As to three possible answers (yes, no, maybe), q=
uantum theory adds probabilism:  In the two-slit experiment, it cannot=
 be known (not even “maybe”) whether the electron will go throu=
gh the one or the other.  As to strings, the experts are strongly divi=
ded as to whether there even are such things.  As a non-mathematician,=
 I avoid taking sides.



Cheers,



Steve





On 6/26/09 8:43 AM, "Charles Stephenson" <CWStephenson2008@AOL.COM> wrote:



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 m=
y computer's intelligent mouse. 

 

Speaking as a non-expert, I would prefer not to describe Q and R as incomme=
nsurate (having no common measuring standard). Isn't it fair to say that th=
ey both use a common mathematical measurement, the unit, to describe differ=
ent aspects of reality? 

 

You are right to raise the issue of Newtonian ve=
rsus quantum.

 

However, it appears that basic principles of Newtonian mechanics (that simi=
larly charged particles attract each other -- the basis of gravity) also op=
erate in the wave (quantum) state of energy. 

 

I would quite agree that moving up the scale of size, from energy to wave t=
o 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 k=
eep 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 di=
visa est....")

 

Max Planck famously postulated that you could not subdivide (matter or ener=
gy in wave form) below a certain size, which corresponded to about the diam=
eter of a photon (the normal unit of visibility).

 

Mathematical and theoretical considerations strongly suggest, as I have arg=
ued 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 mathe=
matically between objective and subjective. 

 

Freud had a colleague by the name of Brown, as well as one by the name of J=
ones. 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/100122638x1=
222405996x1201457362/aol?redir=3Dhttp://www.getpeek.com/aol> 








--_000_C6706E0E762Csbrownkentedu_--