Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA21573 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 26 May 2001 00:58:44 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 19:00:52 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Quantum questions ! CC: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <3B0EABE4.18352.2ABDE5@localhost> In-reply-to: <000d01c0e55d$f54da6c0$1907bed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 25 May 2001, at 23:02, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
Memes have not to do with the matter/energy in which they are
encoded, or even the code itself, so much as the signification
which is encoded therein. Otherwise, the entire concepts of
memetic hooks and filters would be incoherent, as these devices
disciminate on the basis of semantics (the meaning within the
message).
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just for seeing things end up,
>
> I am currently deep in quantum- related things and therefor this
> question , if anyone feels like it...
>
> Is a meme, can the meme be a bosonic substrate !?
> We know that a meme can occupy different brains, can in fact mean
> the same thing for different people, it has particle ( as quantum-
> like expressed), but are memes about " relationships " !?
>
> In the real sense of the word, yes. A meme gives reason/ meaning
> to some- thing and therefor builts in a sense a relationship
> between things !? A meme in itself is worthless_ we need context/
> behavior/ traits/ habits to see/ experience/ determine its
> existence. That is a quantum condition.
>
> Hence the first sentence of this post, bosons are particle of "
> relationship ' as they are used to interact. Memes are units of
> information travelling from brain to brain, can we say to built up
> ' relationship ' as they are used as an interactive (f)actor
> between two brains !? After all, without counting in the
> neurological representation of what some- body is thinking about
> you can 't fully determine the aspects of memetics. That is, if
> you can 't determine to the full to which extend somebody's memes
> give rise to ' relationship ' / (memeplex !?) and what are these
> all about, we can 't talk about memetics, can we !?
>
> Unless a meme has something to the extend that it means or
> signifies something to someone than it is a meme. So, when two
> people speak with eachother, they exchange memes, or put in
> quantum related terms, they exchange bosons.
>
> We need to determine ' what ' changes our behavior and to what
> extend this is representative for our Self, society and culture
> and for our thinking about these things. Of course, like in common
> quantum theory this gives rise to a somewhat uncertain principle.
> You can not see/ experience/ determine to the full extend ' a
> meme(plex) ' of somebody and at the same time grasp all of its
> relationships. What in a way means the following,1_ that the whole
> of reality can 't be seen and stays within its potential
> bounderies; 2_ that what we all see/ determine/ experience is our
> prerogative and therefor ' true'; 3_ that in a way we have to
> leave behind our particle ( individuality) aspect to come to any
> consensus and 4_ that we can 't be detached from the idea that we
> too are an aspect of the context wherein we investigate memes and
> therefor the conclusion that all of this is meme- driven can be
> reached.
>
> I repeat my question, is a meme a bosonic substrate !?
> Can we include memes into a quantum concept or vice versa !?
> Would this not be another tautology !?
>
> From my perspective, we could easily regard the Bose- Einstein
> condensate, ( the bosons are regarded in quantum theory as the
> ideal canditate to provide the unity of consciousness) as a/ the
> meme. Can we with even regards say that a boson is a meme and
> therefor the unity of consciousness !? That would make sense,
> wouldn 't it !?
>
> thanks for reading,
>
> Kenneth
>
> ( I am, because we are) finally the same state
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 26 2001 - 01:02:29 BST