Philosophy Discussion Forums

Ktulu wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


How can I be wrong about something I have made no claim about. I asked you, what do you believe the difference is between an observed, measured wave function as we would find in reality, and something that we have knowledge of from having observed it? what do you think a wave function is? do you think it is a thing or a mathematical probability?

You claimed:

The wave function does represent reality. ... We gain knowledge from OBSERVING reality, a process that is understood to collapse a wave function.

The point I am trying to make is that in the dominant interpretation of QM, the wavefunction does _not_ represent reality, but rather subjective knowledge. Upon making an observation of a system, no real object is "collapsing": it's just a state of our knowledge in your brain.

If the wavefunction were real, then the collapse would be a real physical process. The real process would involve super-luminal speeds, and non-local effects, which is an issue. Actually, if the wavefunction were real, then it would have failed certain well known physical tests, so in effect it would "look" different.

Steve3007 wrote:Teh: (Nested quote removed.)


If I measure the speed of a single molecule of air in a room, I call that "the speed of a single molecule of air". If I measure the average speed of all those molecules I call that "temperature". If I measure the average speed of 3 molecules? Temperature? You decide.

I think I have to agree with you on this one. The air, like a tree, or like any spectrum of light, is going to have an enormous number of electrons. We're never going to just find 3 electrons in the air or in a tree... so I think "3 dots" probably belabors the question.

Supine:

Yes, but that wasn't really quite the point I was trying to make. (Pause to try to remember the point I was trying to make.)

I think, at heart, it was a point about continua and classification. I tend to be very sceptical of the idea that there are discrete, hard divisions in nature that are not superimposed by us for our own purposes. But that's probably another discussion.

The more immediate purpose was to illustrate the idea of collective and individual properties. Temperature is a collective, statistical property. It makes no sense to talk about the temperature of an individual air molecule. The concept of temperature emerges, gradually, with greater and greater accuracy, as the number of molecules increases. This is analogous to the observed emergence of the wave aspects in the quantum mechanics of the double slit experiment.

If you haven't heard of the double-slit experiment I'd recommend finding a good popular account of it. It's interesting.

P.S. Did you like my explanation of your action-reaction-kicking-the-earth confusion? Did it help any?

Steve you do not know how much I enjoy this total inability the accepted concepts have to find a reason in its illogical foundations. Even when the concepts are accepted by the participants the results are even more confusing and controversial. I find myself feeling quite superior because my beliefs can find acceptable answers. Particles and yet more particles buzzing around the china shop.

Steve3007 wrote:The more immediate purpose was to illustrate the idea of collective and individual properties. Temperature is a collective, statistical property. It makes no sense to talk about the temperature of an individual air molecule. The concept of temperature emerges, gradually, with greater and greater accuracy, as the number of molecules increases.

Yeah, I got that part, Steve. You can't have temperature with one molecule. With three molecules in a room 500 square feet I assume it would be freezing in that room. My points about the tree or various spectrum of light is that they both are contingent upon however many zillions of molecules. In other words... as it concerns our human senses you can no more have a tree with only 3 molecules than you can have temperature (depending on the size of the space) with only 3 molecules. Well... the temperature in terms of creating any heat would be negligible to the human senses.

If you haven't heard of the double-slit experiment I'd recommend finding a good popular account of it. It's interesting.

I'll have to look into that then.

P.S. Did you like my explanation of your action-reaction-kicking-the-earth confusion? Did it help any?

Sorry, Steve, I missed it. What post number was it under? I'll look at when I get a chance. I have to leave for class now.

Peace.

Ktulu wrote:I don't see the mystical interpretations as valid. It's true that it is a poorly understood phenomena...but this doesn't mean that it needs this whole mystical interpretation. We're still not special in my opinion, we're just cave men throwing rocks, except they're very very small rocks.

Cave men who can calculate the age and size of the Universe. Odd, the things you can pick up chasing wildebeest around the Sereghetti for a lousy few million years.

As regards quantum mysticism, I recommend this article, with an attached paper that goes into more detail.http://phys.org/news163670588.html

Nothing new in all of this, just another example of how humanity acts in the face of ignorance. We did much the same thing when we did not understand the movement of the heavens. We invent a mystical universe where nothing is certain, we make sacrifices to the gods because the high priests demand it. If any dare suggest an alternative they are either ignored or burnt. It reminds me of when captain Cooks boat sailed int a bay where natives tribesmen stood. They unconsciously ignored the boat incapable of accepting such an alien image.

Supine:

Post #87

Xris:

Particles and yet more particles buzzing around the china shop.

And all those particles in the china shop actually add up to one big lump of bull, eh?

Hello everyone!

Science is not something mysterious and vague. Rather than collection of whims and fancies, science is actually a derivative of basic reasoning. In other words, if you believe in basic logic such as that a not-gate will output false when input is true, then you believe in science. Science is the collection of reasoning based on facts, the fundamental faculty of human kind. Thus, if there exists something science cannot resolve, nothing can resolve it.

Kai

Quotidian wrote:

I have had this as an example thrown at me so many times.OK, but it indicates nothing but a total disregard for logic.This damned experiment is the culprit for so much mystical musing in science. It is like the crying virgin Mary statue of science.

Xris wrote: I have had this as an example thrown at me so many times.OK, but it indicates nothing but a total disregard for logic.This damned experiment is the culprit for so much mystical musing in science. It is like the crying virgin Mary statue of science.

So, what is the _logical_ explanation for the experiment?

Xris:

This damned experiment is the culprit for so much mystical musing in science. It is like the crying virgin Mary statue of science.

I love the analogy. But, of course, as you know, I disagree with the substance, for the reasons we've discussed many times before.

The difference is that nobody has ever accurately performed the double slit experiment, or its equivelants, and not got the same results. If they ever did, it would be an extremely exciting and interesting event (if you like that sort of thing.)

Whereas lots of people have looked at a statue of the virgin mary and not seen it crying. Of course, one could say: "If you failed to see it crying, it just means you weren't looking at it the right way, or with the right frame of mind.".

The difference here is that if you failed to see the standard results in the double-slit experiment it would be possible to independantly test whether you've setup the experiment properly by publishing the precise details of what you did. i.e. peer review.

What ever way you look at a certain phenomena your faith prevails. The double split experiment only indicates a lack of knowledge, not a defining moment in science. Miracles come from belief in concepts. God and particles appear to have a lot in common.

__________________

Getting back on topic...

Skakos wrote:
Do you think Science has limits?

Not unless you believe that “imagination” has limits (I will qualify that statement in a moment).

The obvious and ultimate goal of science is to gain absolute knowledge of, and thus complete control over the “material” aspects of the universe.

And the simplest way of visualizing how such a goal might be achieved can be seen in the analogy of virtual reality games and movies.

In the realm of virtual reality, humans have managed to develop computer programs that can create practically anything “imaginable” in a simulated reality context.

By understanding and deftly wielding the informational underpinnings of visual graphics and sound, computer artists and technicians are, in effect, mimicking in a virtual realm the “potential control” that quantum science is beginning to acquire over physical reality.

In other words, the greater and more refined our understanding of the informational underpinning of the universe becomes...

...(whether that be through quantum mechanics or some new and exotic means yet to be discovered)...

...then the more amazing our control over universal reality will become – to the point of achieving almost anything imaginable...

...(within the bounds of propriety that is – very important to keep in mind).

What I mean by the “bounds of propriety” is that humans will not be "allowed" to create wild and illogical manifestations of objective reality with the same unbridled control available (subjectively) to the human imagination itself, for that could result in the breaching of universal order.

Nevertheless, it seems obvious that science (unfettered) in conjunction with imagination can ascend to heights of creativity undreamed of at this present moment.

However, before that can occur, it is essential that humanity (as a whole) elevates itself "spiritually" in a context of oneness and unity before it can be handed the "keys to the car," so to speak.

Because from the limited inroads we have thus far made in our understanding of the quantum realm, we have managed not only to create cosmic weaponry that can destroy us and the earth many times over, but are also afflicted with moronic, low-conscious, old paradigm thinking "leaders" who are ready to use the weaponry at any moment now.

All of which is a clear indication of our extreme immaturity and how our science has outpaced our general level of consciousness on earth.

Skakos wrote:
Or do you think Science can eventually explain everything?

Science itself will only be able to explain the material properties of objective reality.

On the other hand, what we conscious and thinking beings can infer from the explanations is another story.

seeds