Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA29594 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 30 May 2001 20:58:43 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:00:56 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Quantum questions ! Message-ID: <3B150B28.21781.D429A6@localhost> In-reply-to: <000901c0e942$d34e20c0$5e9cbed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 30 May 2001, at 21:57, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Cc: dinij <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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'
> meaning 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,....
This has to do with what is caled the semiotic web, where every
definition of a word depends upon the definitions of the words used
in its definition, and so on ad infinitum. It is also referred to as the
vicious hermeneutic circle, where the writer's intent can never be
cleansed of the preconceptions the reader brings to the study of a
text, because in the absence of any perspectival or referential
frame whatsoever, not investigation can be conducted at all. The
problem is with the physicalist analogy; it does not fit well as an
analogy due to the protean and evolutionary character of memes;
particles and waves are what they are, and do not evolve (a boson
is always a boson, a photon is always a photon, etc.) while
maintaining their identity, yet theories of evolution may refine and
elaborate while remaining theiroes of evolution. It seems to me
that you are even attempting to go farther than to propose wavicles
as an analogy, and are even suggesting it as an actuality. This
simply will not work, due to the substance (for physical entities) vs.
configuration (for memes) disparity between the two.
> 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- generalition.
The development of memes as a result of their accommodation to
and assimilation within different cognitive gestalts is adequately
represented via the analogy to specied confronting new
environmental ecologies, with the addendum that cognitive
selection, unlike natural selection, may be intentional. To attempt
to graft a wavicle model onto this adds nothing, in my opinion, and
in addition tends to distort the evolutionary process being forced
into the paradigm.
> 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 syntax environment.
And the basic constitutions of fundamental waves and particles do
NOT change. Only our apprehension of which it is we are viewing
changes, as a result of the perceptual media (experiment) we
choosse to employ. One of the points to be made is that memes
are not fundamental entities, but very complex, and thus follow
different and emergent rules. Another point is that all meanings
refer to the intender, just as all perceptions refer to the perceiver,
but there is a vast difference between perception and conception
(which is a perspective UPON perception). There is a fundamental
ABOUTNESS, or referentiality, or representation, to meaning that
one does not find within the realm of being.
> 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 !!
The error was committed in the opposite direction when Sokal
offered a parody of postmoden pretensions named
TRANSGRESSING THE BOUNDARIES: A HERMENEUTICS OF
QUANTUM GRAVITY to a deconstructionist magazine. It
satirically suggested that the force of gravity was a social construct
(I'm not kidding - but HE was), and the clueless editors actually
took it seriously and published the thing.
> 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 !?
That is the atomism/holism debate; I happen to believe that either
approach offers something that the other one doesn't, and that they
should be employed in a complementary fashion. As far as your
suggestion is concerned, the particle would be psychology and the
wave would be sociology, but in the double slit experiment,
particles and waves do not each change the character of the other
via interaction between fundamentally different categories of
entities, but are instead two experimnetal views of the same object,
while human individuals cannot be equated with human groups.
> 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)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
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 - 21:02:30 BST