Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA21213 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 25 May 2001 20:19:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c0e554$b5b622c0$c19ebed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: "memetics" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Quantum questions ! Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 21:55:17 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0E565.62B8A6E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
Of course, like in common quantum theory this gives rise to a somewhat
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,
( 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 25 2001 - 20:23:17 BST