Re: Quantum questions !

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 20:57:04 BST

  • Next message: "Re: Quantum questions !"

    Received: by id UAA29536 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 30 May 2001 20:21:21 +0100
    Message-ID: <000901c0e942$d34e20c0$5e9cbed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <3B0FD0DC.12918.BDBD1C@localhost>
    Subject: Re: Quantum questions !
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:57:04 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    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
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <>
    To: <>
    Cc: dinij <>
    Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 10:50 PM
    Subject: Re: Quantum questions !

    Hi Joe,
    If you can spare the time,...
    I wrote,
     That is in a
    > > way, any given meme(plex) we know of, is a probability for further
    > > investigation and at the same time is ' definite ' just because of the
    > > lack of proof that the meme(ples) we know is the final outcome of any
    > > given evolved process !?
    You wrote,
    > In a word, no. The moment you attempt to inextricably link the
    > instantiation of meaning, which can be represented by
    > configurations of ANY existent matter/energy, to one type of matter
    > or energy in particular and not the others, you err.

    << Did I error !? Granted that I did not express myself clearly.
    I just meant that you can 't grasp to the full extend the ' absolute'
    of any meme ! Any meme is itself a particle, with its full meaning like
    we all do understand it, and on the other hand you have all its relation-
    ships ( wave).
    So,IMO any meme is a probalility for further investigation ( the wave)
    and at the same time ' definite ' ( particle) just because of the lack of
    proof that we have taking all its relationships into count.
    What we can 't ! A meme, is at her wave- aspect not ' absolute ' and
    therefor we can 't ' know ' to full extend the meaning of that meme.

    And what about the expression, the saying,
    " well, now we know that, it changes the whole meaning of the concept ",
    What would be like in this example, be the particle and the wave !?
    What about new added information for what we know as ' meaning ' !?
    Hope I make myself clear,....

    I wrote,
    > > Is a meme a (semantic) expression of the definite outcome of one
    > > probability by which a Bose- Einstein condensate collapsed !? And are
    > > all the different ' memes ' we all use to determine the same odd
    > > thing out, not just definite outcomes of a multitude of probabilities
    > > by which a multitude of Bose- Einstein condensates collapsed !?
    You wrote,
    > No. You are confusing the world of being with the world of
    > meaning. Bertrand Russell would label it a category error.

    << What I really wanted to say is the following.
    Quantum theory or not, when two people meet and they speak about any chosen
    subject- they do that in a different ' tongue ' ( particle aspect;
    same language, same meaning, the way they speak is colored by their
    unique history,..), but the context, the syntax ( the wave -aspect) is for
    both " equal "_ a new insight, a consensus, a new friendship etc.
    This has not to be the same for both, but ' both ' did give rise to a new
    system, a new pattern, a new relationship, a new matter/ energy confi-
    guration. I am just interested in how such a system works in our world
    of being. I just apply some quantum theory aspect upon society and
    aspects of individuality.
    And thanks to you, I know now where NOT to look for any over-

    I wrote, ( SNIP)
    You wrote,
    > No, once again. Some hooks and filters work on some people
    > better than others because we're individuals, with differing cognitive
    > environments differentially permeable to any particular memetic
    > hook or filter.

    << But from my point of view my argument still stands_ you can 't grasp
    to the full extend what for any person works better as a hook or filter
    and therefor you can 't grasp the full description of any meme.
    Meaning would stay the same ( although in a sense it doesn 't) but like
    I mentioned before, there can be a twist and turn.
    In other words, you can 't grasp any meme without its inseperable web
    of relationships.
    That is, not any meme is in a sense ' complete ' when it is spoken,
    written down or reflected upon.
    In a way, its meaning changes slightly wherever used in each possible
    systax environment.

    You wrote,
    > It is easy to get enthralled by an experience of a new field of
    > knowledge, and in one's exuberant enthusiasm, attempt to over-
    > generalize it to apply to any and every thing under, over, around
    > and through the sun. I submit that this is what has happened to
    > you, as the narcotic rush of that initial idea infestation has caused
    > you to universally apply your new understanding, and therefore
    > misapply it.

    << I can 't hide I am thrilled about the aspects of quantum theory for
    society and the individulity- sake, but the theory links in a way certain
    ideas I had in the past. I am trying to see if those ideas end up.
    Therefor this query !!

    You wrote,
    > Actually, according to the double-slit experiment, the way you look
    > decides whether you see a particle or a wave; I consider that to
    > be an immense experimental bias, as the experiment you choose
    > decides the result you get on the selfsame entity.

     << But what would be ( a) particle in society ( the (a) individual !?)
    And what in your opinion should be the wave !?
    Ideology, cultural traits or habits, language, justice, of all at once !?
    Or should we look at one item at the time, count in all relationships,
    make a few experiments and write down the conclusion of which we
    know she isn 't right/ full/ complete anyway !?

    I am grateful,


    ( I am, because we are) we sure are !

    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 : Wed May 30 2001 - 20:25:08 BST