Theos-Talk Archives (December 1993 Message tl00003)

John:

<A recent review of Measure theory has caught my attention,  in
the sense that the mathematics of the theory separates out the
exact requirements (logically speaking) for a system to obtain
the status of Measure vs truly empty (insignificant is a better
word) of physical properties such as a definable Length.>

Could you elaborate on this? My mathematician friend at times speaks of
similar things. he says that you can define spaces mathematically that
have no properties at all, and define things that are completely
abstract and have no counterpart whatsoever in physical experince. I
wonder if you guys might be on the same line of thought.

<... describing the difference between the physical plane and the
lesser planes>

Could you elaborate on this some more too?  Its my impression that the
physical plane is a *subset* of the mental plane (in spite of extremely
stong opinions to the contrary that I've gotten on the science forum in
Compuserve.<g>) <chaos theory is that is inherently classical and can
not explain many of the truly QM events that exist. >

I don't know if its fair to call chaos theory "classical". One only
iterated an equation in classical physics for the purpose of
approximation. Iteration, as you know, is a basic feature of chaos. This
fact alone seems to put them in different catagories of mathematical
description in my mind (i.e. classical physics verses chaos theory).
What do you think about this?

Regarding the nondeterminism that *seems* to be present in QM, I still
am hesitant to buy into the idea that nondeterminism is a cornerstone
concept. May it be that this whole idea of deterministic verses
nodeterministic frameworks is too simple a dichotomy to paint, or
perhaps there is an alternative model that will subsume both models?

And again, I will stress that it is very hard for me to accept the
dialogue of modern physics as it stands. there are too many historical,
sociological and psychological factors that are being completely ignored
for me to buy into the speculations that come from contrasting
classical physics and QM in a relative intellectual vacuum. I mean,
there is not even a working model of how the human mind work in these
types of dialogues, though such models are implied in the various
viewpoints.

Still, I would caution about being too presumptuous in our contentions
about things. Tentativeness is a blessing in this regard.

To Gerald Schueler:

Jerry, would you mind if I ran a chart on you? Could you get me your
birthdata? I'm curious to see how an assesment of your birthchart
illuminates your thoughts.

Best to all!

Don