Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
jgill: It seems to me that everything in your post relies upon the following that you wrote,: “Suppose . . . .”
Astute observation, Mike.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
I apologize in advance. I can't figure out why there is any discussion on physical extent.
In the standard model no provision is made for the physical extent( whatever that means in
QM) of particles. They are assumed to be point particles just as we assume all of the
universe had a Planck length at its inception. This assumption is an assumption that is well
supported by experiment.
That does not prove particles are points. It proves we can well predict experiment without
assuming they have physical extent. We each have enough imagination to understand this
seminal point.
And that is where String Theory comes in. If we assume particles are oscillating strings with
some small extent we get an immediate mathematical break through. We are no longer
doing integrals whose arguments blow up to infinity at the particle. (Go to Jgill to
understand better the implications of this.) This is huge! Over the last forty years the string
presumption has allowed such things as the unification of all four forces across huge scales
and allowed us to unify theories of gravity with those of QM.
There has, as yet, been no experimental confirmation so the building is not yet completed.
But all manner of leading particle physicists who were initially dismissive of string theory,
are now hedging their positions.
Exciting!
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
I like this thread, I wish I started following before there were 6000 posts
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 2, 2015 - 11:15am PT
|
Moose, you are missing the key point in the experiment down under by "selectively hearing" what you want to hear, which supports your old and now untenable position. Your vaunted "detector" is a misinterpretation that allows you to posit objective reality existing separate from consciousness - the classical materialsist position now junked by all.
What the man said was this:
"At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
In other words, the "detector" is your own sentience.
JL
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
but what constitutes “fit” is where the rubber meets the road.
This statement is not where the rubber hits the road.
If you give me the option to have 100 adjustable parameters using least squares I can fit just
about anything and it means very little. On the other hand if I can come up with a model
having no adjustable parameters but which does fit the data well, I have something. Even
that something, however, does not prove what is happening. If I can then take that model
and predict the results of two or three other experiments I have more.
But, mind you, this still does not prove absolutely, what is happening. Tomorrow someone
will invent a more precise method of measurement and its data will not fit my model's
prediction exactly. So we go around again, each time learning a bit more.
I know this evolutionary process does not satisfy those who think they must possess the myth
called " absolute truth".
Those people really need to go find a different universe in which to live.
In this universe absolute truth is something popularly called "unobtainium".
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
those who think they must possess the myth called " absolute truth".
jstan just made an absolute truth statement saying there's no such thing as "Absolute Truth"
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
If I were injured and there was a 3000 foot deep hole beneath me, and I had to choose which duck would save me, I would go for a duck who was pretty sure of what had to be done.
Everything has a price.
And Werner is correct above. I worded it poorly.
"We have no data indicating an absolute truth has been found."
Edit:
Have we all noticed this Braun character is pretty smart?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You can't use "We" either.
You haven't met everyone on this planet and what to speak of the entire cosmic manifestation.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Why the detector? In the last analysis, the choice is arbitrary.
Nonsense. Some folks though are wary and skeptical of any form of conclusion - sure, it could be rainbow-colored unicorns guarding the slits which are responsible - but I wouldn't be betting heavily against the detector.
In other words, the "detector" is your own sentience.
More nonsense. You keep emphatically proselytizing you beliefs, but they are not born out or supported by this or any other experiment. And quantum collapse happens every time a photon strikes a leaf and catalyzes the production of sugar - no observer or sentience required - merely a 'detector' in the form of a leaf. Overall this is where adherents of panpsychism can easily stray from that basic premise to the absurd 'I-create-reality' mantra while at the same time broaching unbelievable levels of self-absorption, self-importance, and arrogance. Dude, you're a climber, a good one I'll grant you, and a decent writer; but let's agree to keep the god-factor down to a dull roar.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 2, 2015 - 04:49pm PT
|
Healyje, you flatter me by attributing quotes and information to me that I never authored, calling it poetry or some such bosh. You will be better served to stick closer to the empirical data zand leave of speculation per what I am saying.
For the record:
"At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
Kindly note that I did not say this, nor yet conduct the experiment. Truscott did. What does it mean to you when he says "reality does not exist if YOU are not looking at it?"
You might consider putting down the bong pipe before answering, lest you go off on another of your poetical rants and once more butcher "the English."
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
lest you go off on another of your poetical rants and once more butcher "the English."
Better to butcher "the English" than drown rationality at the altar of the absurd.
And you might want to check with Andrew, who is speaking metaphorically even though you take it literally.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
I need to walk into class in a minute:
Jstan: . . . which does fit the data well, . . .
Tell me what you mean by this. It's a question of degree that leads to a belief, right?
(Tell me what you know without a doubt. It's a simple request, isn't it?)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Tell me what you know without a doubt. It's a simple request, isn't it?
Yes, it is a simple request.
Here is one response:
"There is only one ordered domain whose positive elements are well-ordered, and it is Z."
Note that this statement should be preceded by, "In this sense,"
If you wish more detail, Google the statement.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Moose - exactly. Hey, Lago - every take a photo of yourself or yourself in a group with a camera's timer? Friggin' amazing what you can accomplish having without sentient intervention - or, I suppose you could argue the photo wasn't taken until you qualed at the sight of it.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 2, 2015 - 06:08pm PT
|
Moose and Healje, you duffers are the last hold outs for the staunch materialist POV. As if the Copenhagan Interpretation was offered as a "metaphor." And like I'm going to offer up Wheeler's old gold (from 2002) article without reading it. His ideas have since been adjusted.
Maybe this one can get through that thick skull. Note there is no mention of metaphor - and quit mixing them, Healje, trying to sound erudite (drowning, altar, rationality, etc.). Check out "On Writing Well" and hone in on "inflation" and "clutter." Then read the following and give up on your objective dream. It ain't there amigo.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Jstan: . . . which does fit the data well, . . .
Tell me what you mean by this. It's a question of degree that leads to a belief, right?
(Tell me what you know without a doubt. It's a simple request, isn't it?)
Holy cow Where to begin.
1. No, there is no belief. There is working data generally based upon the parameter R^2 that estimates the portion of the measured data supported by the function fitted. If R^2 is small you may be fitting to something other than a function that is appropriate.
2. I don't accept anything without doubt. Listen to Feynman's lectures on plausibility..
3. When a person says their question is simple, you know either they are simple or you know they hope to frame their question deceitfully.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Then read the following and give up on your objective dream. It ain't there amigo.
So you're posting up a 2008 reprint quoting from Anton - the very person I posted up on two pages previous - and who, in 2014, proposed retiring the scientific idea that "there is No Reality in the Quantum World". Amigo indeed...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jstan: When a person says their question is simple, you know either they are simple or you know they hope to frame their question deceitfully.
I don’t do that. I have no need. You are being cynical. Again, there is no need.
If R^2 is not 1, then there are things in the observation that you have not specified. Your model is just that: a model. If you have doubt, then you don’t “know.” You believe.
Your consciousness, if you have it and if you are a being, is not something that can be doubted. All else can be.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Or, to paraphrase the outcome of a recent experiment by Alessandro Fedrizzi, one of Anton's past students, "the wavefunction should directly correspond to [this] reality.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Jstan: When a person says their question is simple, you know either they are simple or you know they hope to frame their question deceitfully.
I don’t do that. I have no need. You are being cynical. Again, there is no need.
If R^2 is not 1, then there are things in the observation that you have not specified. Your model is just that: a model. If you have doubt, then you don’t “know.” You believe.
Your consciousness, if you have it and if you are a being, is not something that can be doubted. All else can be.
I said "holy cow" last time. This is even further out.
You are certain of your consciousness. How do you know you are not schizoid?
Seems to me the rest needs no response.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!