File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0309, message 123


From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:07:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Ouzo or Ousia?



on 14/9/03 6:26 pm, GEVANS613-AT-aol.com at GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:

> So what is he saying?  He isn't saying that these electrons do not exist, 
but
> is saying that due to the methodological activity of observation the 
observer
> affects the observed in such a way that it distorts the notional nature of 
an
> unaffected entity.

Read his text again: carefully and slowly - I render in full again then I'll 
break it up into easily digestible chunks to make it easier for you.

In it he admits

'We cannot know something as it exists "in and of itself"--because our very 
action to observe this thing has a shaping effect on it; it responds to our 
efforts to observe it--thus making a "neutral" observation impossible.'

Now to analyse it in detail:
'We cannot know something as it exists "in and of itself"
The "in and of itself"- is what I refer to as: the notional nature of an
unaffected entity. (unaffected that is by any observational action per 
Heisenberg)

because our very action to observe this thing has a shaping effect on it;  
(dictionary: Shaping: Give a shape or form to)
 - this is what I refer to when I say- the observer affects the observed in 
such a way that it distorts it (dictionary: again: Shaping: Give a shape or 
form to)

it responds to our efforts to observe it--thus making a "neutral" observation 
impossible.'


> No. It is NOT a distortion for Heisenberg, one simply can not talk about the
> observed in some way commensurate with a Newtonian-cum-classical notion of
> an entity 
> 
> Heisenberg: His words again: 'because our very action to observe this thing 
> has a shaping effect on it;' 
> 
> Jud  - So you are accusing Heisenberg of   talking about the
> observed in some way commensurate with a Newtonian-cum-classical notion of
> an entity - not me


Michael:
> t is NOT down to the " methodological activity of observation" that in 
> some way
> affects the result, although it does; 


Jud:
Make up your mind for God's sake - first you say it's NOT down to the " 
methodological activity of observation" that in some way
affects the result, and then you say it does - what the hell are you talking 
about?

Michael:
> electron exists in some individual 
> sense, in some place, at some time, is
> itself not at all given in the observational evidence at all. but the so so
> solid belief in the virginal existence of what has never ever been
> experienced in any way a-part from technological measurements (themselves
> not grounded a-part from the casting of beings as only technologically
> certified, etc). 
> 
> Jud:
> And what on earth is THAT supposed to mean?
> Heisenberg WAS a scientist observing the behaviour of entities called 
> electrons, which were active in his laboratory
> within the confines of his experimental setup, fired from his gun at a 
> certain time in the morning or afternoon on a certain date
> if they were'nt there at the time but somewhere else [on the moon for 
> instance] how could he have carried out his experiment?
> What do you mean by 'never been experienced' anyway? Because you have never 
> seen radio waves do you doubt their existence?
> Youve never seen an electron but if you have a TV you can experience the 
> impact on the inside coating of your TV screen as pictures can't you
> what MORE evidence do you need? What EXACTLY do you mean by the 'not 
> grounded a-part from the casting of beings'?
> Are you denying the veracity of the technological measurements?


Michael:
The observer as such is not a problem for quantum
> mechanics, nor the observation, rather the metaphysical, ideological,
> theological notion of the thing-in-itself, is itself up for grabs.

Heisenberg:
'because our very action to observe this thing has a shaping effect on it; it 
responds to our efforts to observe it--thus making a "neutral" observation 
impossible.'

Jud:
Are you setting yourself up as more of an expert quantum physist than 
Heisenberg himself?
Metaphysics? Theology? Ideologogy?  What on earth have those oddball 
activities got to do with Heisenberg's experiments?
> 
> Jud:

Your appropriation of "distortion" is itself an excuse for willingly
> 
> misunderstanding the whole of Heisenberg's thinking on this, just like his
> contemporaries, except that they were involved seriously with the real
> problems from their scientific view, whereas your response is that of some
> kind of pathetic kulture vulture.

I will ignore the usual ad hom and direct your unwilling eyes back to 
Heisenberg's text
our very action to observe this thing has a shaping effect on it; it responds 
to our efforts to observe it--thus making a "neutral" observation 
impossible.'  He is making the point that the observational efforts to observe it has the 
effect of 'shaping' it (Note: 'Distort' to alter the shape of something by 
stress,

Michael:
> You might well have the texts but you still need to learn to read without
> your obvious, so obvious, ideological agenda.

Jud:
You are bloody hard work sometimes Michael - but this has got to be the most 
bone-headed message you have ever sent to this list.


Cheers,

Jud.

<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A> 
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com</A>


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005