LS Re: MOQ puzzles

Diana McPartlin (
Mon, 1 Sep 1997 12:31:39 +0100

Jason Gaedtke wrote:

> I do believe that a definite distinction can be made between atomic and
> subatomic phenomena. According to my second-hand interpretation, atomic
> phenomena are for the most part static, observable, and measurable. Atoms
> do not spontaneously appear and disappear. They do not exhibit
> wave/particle duality. They are not spontaneously created and destroyed
> (at least not under the conditions that we are most familiar with -- that
> is, standard atmospheric temperatures and pressures). (These general
> statements exclude radioactive elements, which do in fact spontaneously
> decay.)
> The very essence of subatomic patterns, conversely, involve a constant
> interplay between existence and nonexistence, creation and destruction,
> being and becoming.

Can we stop here because so far I'm with you. This seems consistent with
what I understand about quantum physics. If you'll allow me to sum it up
in very unscientific terms, subatomic patterns are variable while atomic
patterns are constant.

However while I don't dispute the scientific evidence, as I see it this
suggests that the atomic patterns are in violation of the MoQ.

According to the MoQ everything is value. Atoms only behave the way they
do because they prefer to. This implies that they are potentially
variable. I realize this is against the evidence, but still isn't this
what the MoQ says?


post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST