Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/07029200.242 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Thursday 2 Jul 2009 20:02:42
Date:         Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:01:13 -0700
From:         AT 
Subject: Re: pls unsubscribe me temporarily
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

--0-355497350-1246579273=:19702
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To: Q Listserv
pls unsubscribe me temporarily

AT

--- On Wed, 7/1/09, BROWN, STEVEN  wrote:

From: BROWN, STEVEN 
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To: Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 1:36 AM





=20


Charlie,



I hope your birthday was a pleasant affair.



Briefly (as it=E2=80=99s late and I have four dissertations to read).... =
=C2=A0My understanding is that there is a discontinuity between classical a=
nd quantum theories in some respects, the latter displaying indeterminism, =
for instance. =C2=A0There are some things that happen at the quantum level =
that not only don=E2=80=99t but cannot happen at the classical level. =C2=
=A0Attraction between charged particles may be one of the similarities, but=
 there are also many differences. =C2=A0I don=E2=80=99t think that you can =
just divide by 2 and add time. =C2=A0As to three possible answers (yes, no,=
 maybe), quantum theory adds probabilism: =C2=A0In the two-slit experiment,=
 it cannot be known (not even =E2=80=9Cmaybe=E2=80=9D) whether the electron=
 will go through the one or the other. =C2=A0As to strings, the experts are=
 strongly divided as to whether there even are such things. =C2=A0As a non-=
mathematician, I avoid taking sides.



Cheers,



Steve





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



Steve --

=C2=A0

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.=20

=C2=A0

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?=20

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

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.=20

=C2=A0

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?=20

=C2=A0

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=
....")

=20

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).

=C2=A0

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.

=20

You would agree, Stephenson's insight was that there is no difference mathe=
matically between objective and subjective.=20

=C2=A0

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.

=C2=A0

Charles.

=C2=A0

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




=20


=0A=0A=0A      
--0-355497350-1246579273=:19702
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
To: Q Listserv

pls unsubscribe me temporarily

AT=


--- On Wed, 7/1/09, BROWN, STEVEN <sbrown@KENT.EDU>=
; wrote:

From: BROWN, STEVEN <sb=  at 
rown@KENT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To: Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KEN=
T.EDU
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 1:36 AM





=20


Charlie,



I hope your birthday was a pleasant affair.



Briefly (as it=E2=80=99s late and I have four dissertations to read).... &n=
bsp;My understanding is that there is a discontinuity between classical and=
 quantum theories in some respects, the latter displaying indeterminism, fo=
r instance.  There are some things that happen at the quantum level th=
at not only don=E2=80=99t but cannot happen at the classical level.  A=
ttraction between charged particles may be one of the similarities, but the=
re are also many differences.  I don=E2=80=99t think that you can just=
 divide by 2 and add time.  As to three possible answers (yes, no, may=
be), quantum theory adds probabilism:  In the two-slit experiment, it =
cannot be known (not even =E2=80=9Cmaybe=E2=80=9D) whether the electron wil=
l 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-math=
ematician, I avoid taking sides.



Cheers,



Steve





On 6/26/09 8:43 AM, "Charles Stephenson" <CWStephens=
on2008@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 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 tighte=
n your budget with a great mobile device for under $20. Take a Peek! <http=
://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1222405996x1201457362/aol?redir=3Dhttp:=
//www.getpeek.com/aol> 




=20



=0A=0A      
--0-355497350-1246579273=:19702--