Re: Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional Dynamics Concept

[Ionel <***>]

Hi, again, Judith:

I have also answered a similar question from Tim on other Quantum Theory
approaches that have considerable success, for example in Quantum
Electrodynamics such as Richard P. Feynman's, or David Bohm's who has a
very similar view of complex systems' interactions with the measurement
system as Robert. These new Quantum theories are Not "mere changes at the
edges"!

David Bohm's book was printed in 1951, first edition.
To David Bohm, an electron interacting with various detectors/instruments
"is a complex system." His views on quantum measurement are strikingly
close to Robert's. His views on "causality" are also--up to a point--
strikingly similar to Robert's. There is a new edition,1991, of David
Bohm's book on "Quantum Theory" that you and others may wish to see, and
it's not expensive either from half.com or amazon. com, etc.

It does briefly discuss the puzzling similarities between microscopic,
quantum systems and thought processes in humans. David Bohm points out that
both Niels Bohr and Werner heisenberg have noticed that from different
points of view. Related to this topic, and newer is the paper/preprint by
Ronnie Brown on "N-Categories in Neurosciences.", which I mentioned to this
group before.

I remember a neatly typed letter that I received from Robert in 1970 in
which he was also stating that <<from a relational and measurement point of
view a gravitating quantum particle can be as "complex" as many-particle
systems.>>

With best regards,

Ionel


RE: On Fri, 28 May 2004 22:32:05 -0400, Judith Rosen
<***> wrote:

>> Ionel wrote: >> This may, thus suggest that complexity, even in Robert's
sense, does >> originate at the quantum, microscopic level in biological
organisms, as he >> was pondering on this question back in 1954, in his
Quantum Genetics >> article published in BMB. >>

and

RE:   Judith wrote: >>The state-based reality as depicted in Quantum
theory, he said, >is not going to explain "life" as a property of living
systems. Since >finding the scientific explanation for "life" was the
initial/continual >driving force behind everything he achieved during his
career, and remained >his main focus and his passion; once he realized
Quantum theory would not >advance his purpose any further, he walked away.
>My father initially had hopes that Quantum thoery might herald fundamental
>changes for physics, but, after some intensive analysis of what was being
>developed, he came away disappointed. He said, very much as Tim pointed
out >in his post, that Quantum theory kept the original premises that were
>already at the root of physics and merely added to them, changing only the
>outer edges. Whatever else the tool, >represented by Quantum theory, was
good for scientifically, it was as >useless to him as gardening
paraphernalia in a leaky boat. > >Judith


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main ROSEN page


HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM