Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

This is not a serious response.

Unless my understanding of QM is faulty — Richard Feynman said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't." — mine is very much a serious response.

Well exactly.
Since your comments to mean anything you would have to understand QM, I think those comments cannot be taken seriously.

This is not an intellectual ivory-tower plaything we're considering, it's real life, and the real spacetime universe. It does no good to consider these possibilities in a philosophy forum, and then return to our own everyday prejudices afterward. Either this stuff is applicable in and to the real world, or what's the point in discussing it?

AFAIK, my response is serious and correct. But I cannot help you to accept it, if you are disposed to do otherwise.

Enjoy your petunias. You never know when your left foot is going to transform into a bunch of them.

[Pattern-chaser]

Since your comments to mean anything you would have to understand QM, I think those comments cannot be taken seriously.

No? Then QM is just to be dismissed, because it seems to allow for some possibilities that are unacceptable to you? After all, I imagine you understand QM no better than I do, so how are you comfortable dismissing something when you really don't know if (logically) it should be dismissed at all? I definitely do not assert that what I have said is so, but my understanding of QM indicates that it is, or could be.

Are genuinely-novel things really that scary?

[Sculptor1]

Since your comments to mean anything you would have to understand QM, I think those comments cannot be taken seriously.

No? Then QM is just to be dismissed, because it seems to allow for some possibilities that are unacceptable to you? After all, I imagine you understand QM no better than I do, so how are you comfortable dismissing something when you really don't know if (logically) it should be dismissed at all? I definitely do not assert that what I have said is so, but my understanding of QM indicates that it is, or could be.

Are genuinely-novel things really that scary?

You don't understand QM. I did not say it has to be dismissed. But QM does not seem relevant here. Offering a mystical theory might help you establish astrology in your own head but you cannot expect others to accept it too.

[Pattern-chaser]

You don't understand QM.

And you do, enough to know that I'm wrong? Astounding!

[Sculptor1]

Petunias
image_2022-08-12_111309053.png (38.3 KiB) Viewed 679 times

You don't understand QM.

And you do, enough to know that I'm wrong? Astounding!

Your childish gaslighting is noted.
Tutut

[Pattern-chaser]

You don't understand QM.

And you do, enough to know that I'm wrong? Astounding!

Your childish gaslighting is noted.
Tutut

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a History teacher? I was taught how to use Schrödinger's wave equation in university. This is far from a complete understanding of QM, but it is a start. But, "gaslighting"?

Gaslighting is a colloquialism, loosely defined as making someone question their own reality. The term may also be used to describe a person (a "gaslighter") who presents a false narrative to another group or person, thereby leading them to doubt their perceptions and become misled, disoriented or distressed.

No, I'm sorry, I can't see it.

I did try to find something that might support your view(s) on the interweb. I found an article that looked like it did, then I realised the author was refuting the idea that a rock could spontaneously change into something else, which is very different from something spontaneously emerging from the 'quantum foam', apparently from nothing and nowhere.

[Sculptor1]

You don't understand QM.

And you do, enough to know that I'm wrong? Astounding!

Your childish gaslighting is noted.
Tutut

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a History teacher? I was taught how to use Schrödinger's wave equation in university. This is far from a complete understanding of QM, but it is a start. But, "gaslighting"?

Gaslighting is a colloquialism, loosely defined as making someone question their own reality. The term may also be used to describe a person (a "gaslighter") who presents a false narrative to another group or person, thereby leading them to doubt their perceptions and become misled, disoriented or distressed.

No, I'm sorry, I can't see it.

I did try to find something that might support your view(s) on the interweb. I found an article that looked like it did, then I realised the author was refuting the idea that a rock could spontaneously change into something else, which is very different from something spontaneously emerging from the 'quantum foam', apparently from nothing and nowhere.

Since I have made no claims to knowledge of QM, whereas you have made claims that you do not understanding, it is a but rich for you to have made the above comment.
Am I going to fast for you?
Please desist.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have made no claims to knowledge of QM...

...and yet you have dismissed one of its apparent conclusions, seemingly without knowledge or evidence.

You're right: I should desist. There is little point in repeating what I've already said.

[value]

It's my understanding that anything might emerge from the 'quantum foam', although the chances of it happening are very tiny. Even the whale or the petunias. [That's why H2G2 was so funny.] So yes, "seriously".

Do you have a reference for that idea?

[value]

As "perceived" is equivalent to "experienced", no there is no difference.

You forgot the 'in-the-moment' part. The underline should have been experienced in time in-the-moment i.e. 'time as experience'. That experience has no scientific explanation as of today.

Yes it does.

Do you have a reference for that claim? With 'time as experience' is meant conscious experience.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's my understanding that anything might emerge from the 'quantum foam', although the chances of it happening are very tiny. Even the whale or the petunias. [That's why H2G2 was so funny.] So yes, "seriously".

Do you have a reference for that idea?

I'm sorry, no, I don't. I believe it to be correct, but I am no expert, and I'm writing from memory (never a good idea once one's age exceeds 25 or so!). Could be very wrong...

[value]

I'm sorry, no, I don't. I believe it to be correct, but I am no expert, and I'm writingfrom memory (never a good idea once one's age exceeds 25 or so!). Could be very wrong...

So in your opinion - based on your memory about what's valid about QM - a whale could suddenly pop-up in Earth's atmosphere?

What would that have to do with true randomness?

Probability in my opinion is a deviation of true randomness which implies that anything within the scope of applicable probability is bound by meaning. In practice that concerns meaningful relevance.

[Sculptor1]

I have made no claims to knowledge of QM...

...and yet you have dismissed one of its apparent conclusions, seemingly without knowledge or evidence.

You're right: I should desist. There is little point in repeating what I've already said.

If you think you have an apparent conclusion then you haven't an apparent conclusion.
If you think you have knowledge or evidence of QM then you do not have knowledge or evidence of QM
Yes desist from saying nothing, by stopping. That would makes sense.

[Sculptor1]

As "perceived" is equivalent to "experienced", no there is no difference.

You forgot the 'in-the-moment' part. The underline should have been experienced in time in-the-moment i.e. 'time as experience'. That experience has no scientific explanation as of today.

Yes it does.

Do you have a reference for that claim? With 'time as experience' is meant conscious experience.

There is no claim.
Nothing of any value has been expressed since the terms you have used have not been clarified.

[value]

You forgot the 'in-the-moment' part. The underline should have been experienced in time in-the-moment i.e. 'time as experience'. That experience has no scientific explanation as of today.

Yes it does.

Do you have a reference for that claim? With 'time as experience' is meant conscious experience.

There is no claim.
Nothing of any value has been expressed since the terms you have used have not been clarified.

What is unclear about the term experience?

When time is perceived as part of an experience, how can it be said that what is perceived to be 'in time' (i.e. when looking out into the cosmos) is the same in experienced time?

Is there any clue for the idea that what is perceived in time by looking out into the cosmos remains the same in experienced time?