Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jstan: . . . it is often difficult to understand the jumbled descriptions of your thoughts.
Pardon me, but this often happens when people from different field talk to one another. This is why the topic of collaboration is so important and so trying for people. You must listen and translate. Residing in your own domain won’t be helpful.
I think it was M/L who spoke of not knowing. Let me ask. If we could choose to live in either a world we understand completely or in one we did not understand completely, which would we find more interesting?
Kindly note that this would seem to reveal a personal preference to which many other people may not have signed-up for. This appears to be a problem all over the world these days.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jstan: I think it was M/L who spoke of not knowing. Let me ask. If we could choose to live in either a world we understand completely or in one we did not understand completely, which would we find more interesting?
To my mind, there is nothing more challenging and exciting (stimulating) than to live, in real time, in a world where I don’t know what’s going on.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
To my mind, there is nothing more challenging and exciting (stimulating) than to live, in real time, in a world where I don’t know what’s going on.
And to my mind it is fun to see your assessments of that world.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2015 - 06:51pm PT
|
Stannard ranted:
When reading your stuff it is often difficult to understand the jumbled descriptions of your thoughts. Personal thoughts that are also combined with your erroneous understanding of science.
You've been beating that horse and playing the avuncular, clear-heared, entirely rational science expert but in fact you have made no effort to understand anyone else except on your own terms, nor yet have you ever apparently learned anything entirely new. That's because you have narrowed your inquiry to where you can safely say what you are saying on the head of a pin, while others of us are casting far and wide and are not afraid of not-knowing. It's like watching a guy repeat the same climb 100 because he can do it perfectly.
Congradulations.
And you missed the nuance of language behind what John said. You simply are too literal to get the tonal implications.
But let me put it straight to you, John. When the Australian scientist said, "Reality is not there unless you are looking at it," what do you think he was LITERALLY saying (NOT metaphorically), and what part of what he said are you convinced I do not understand?
What's more, without going into a turgid and tedious discussion of terms, what do you hold to be the difference between sentience and content (of experience)?
JL
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
You are right, jgill. I was unfair to the National Enquirer.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2015 - 07:17pm PT
|
But you wonder what is there beyond appearances.
You may wonder that, but can you convince me that there is anything beyond appearances?
No one can convince you of anything, MH2. But you can start investigating that which is NOT an appearance. Such as your own direct experience - the moment you shut up and stop calculating. Unless you are experientially autistic, so to speak.
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2015 - 08:23pm PT
|
Moose, I understand that you believe the Australians were speaking metaphorically. My friends at Caltech laughed at this, and asked for you to cite peer-reviewed examples of your claim.
One friend said, "Have him explain what the hell he means by a "metaphorical" interpretation of what was said. Then have him explain what effect the observer has in the experiment."
So now it's your turn to answer the questions.
Have at it.
For those not jiggy with the experiment, here is the meat of the findings:
The results and their interpretation
As the second grating was added only after the atom had passed through the first one, it would be reasonable to suggest that the atom hadn’t yet ‘decided’ whether it was a particle or a wave before the second measurement.
According to Dr. Truscott, there may be two and only two possible interpretations of these results. Either A) the atom ‘decided’ how to behave based on the measurement or, B), a future measurement affected the photon’s past.
“The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
Thus, this experiment provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. Perhaps further research and more thought-provoking evidence like this will completely change our understanding of reality one day.
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
READ OTHER INTERPRETATIONS
Yes ... just keep shouting to the world to keep guessing in the name of science.
The more so called modern science guesses the more it knows and brainwashes itself and the world.
Just keep building more machines that cost billions and billions to keep guessing what's already so simple to understand.
Modern science can't understand a simple thing without wasting billions and billions of dollars.
The conclusion of modern science is ....
We don't know sh!t !!!
But in future after spending more billions and billions we will still not know sh!t since nobody knows.
Nobody .... but give us your money anyways and we'll give you Youtube and Television to brainwash you that we know sh!t .....
All while you become homeless and the rest of the world spends all its time killing each other with wars and sh!t.
What stooopid sh!t in the name of modern material science ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Moose: READ OTHER INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT YOU ARE REFERRING TO
Yeah, . . . and there’s the rub: interpretations. There seems to be an infinite number of those for everything.
WHY would that be, do you think? The consistency of those (apparent) effects should be very suggestive to folks, but almost everyone ignores it. If you had to, how would you characterize a reality that unendingly produces those effects?
Makes quantum mechanics appear simple-minded.
Things are “strange?” No, I’d say things are way way beyond strange.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Thus, this experiment provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
Crikey, utterly dense and not really getting much out of his commute.
Again, no observer necessary, only an interaction which results in a wavefunction resolving / collapsing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The "Observer" is always there, always.
Not even a blade of grass can move without the observer.
Stooopid modern scientists are so stooopid and self important.
They say "No Body Knows" and then they tell you they know .....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Thus, this experiment provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer (JL)
You are citing experiments in the quantum world where the uncertainty principle holds, and which may have multiple interpretations. Read some of the posts in this thread. However, no matter what the interpretation, there is no basis to conflate these ideas to the macro world in order to provide a connection to your meditative experiences.
My friends at Caltech laughed at this, and asked for you to cite peer-reviewed examples of your claim. One friend said, "Have him explain what the hell he means by a "metaphorical" interpretation of what was said. Then have him explain what effect the observer has in the experiment." (JL)
Apparently, your Prodigies, like you, have robust personalities, eager for a scrap. That's great. The young are energetic and confident in their research specialties. But they do occasionally condescend, like a world-class climber laughing at a noob whose comment about a climb was naive. Not a pretty picture. Is this the Prodigy who thought he knew topology? No matter. Your metaphysical explorations are certainly not without vigor!
I look forward to new results in this, a new Victorian Age of Discovery!
;>)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
No one can convince you of anything, MH2.
Untrue.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
All of this reminds me of a question Sir Ken Robinson asks. A man in the woods says something but no woman hears him. Is he still wrong?
This discussion has apparently concluded there is always a woman.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
All of this reminds me of a question Sir Ken Robinson asks. A man in the woods says something but no woman hears him. Is he still wrong?
This discussion has apparently concluded there is always a woman.
Enough of your ranting, old man!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Healyje: . . . no observer necessary, . . . .
How could one claim that anything exists without some observation being made?
As for saying what does NOT exist, how could such a statement ever be proven?
(Conundrums, dilemmas, and paradoxes.)
MH2: Untrue.
I think the point is, MH2, that there is no force in the universe that can make you (or anyone else) believe almost anything. There is only one fact, and after that, there is nothing more than what bracketing can artificially (analytically) point to.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Going beyond appearances
Whether the sky be clear or cloudy, it always seems to us to have the shape of an elliptic arch; far from having the form of a circular arch, it always seems flattened and depressed above our heads, and gradually to become farther removed toward the horizon. Our ancestors imagined that this blue vault was really what the eye would lead them to believe it to be; but, as Voltaire remarks, this is about as reasonable as if a silk-worm took his web for the limits of the universe. The Greek astronomers represented it as formed of a solid crystal substance; and so recently as Copernicus, a large number of astronomers thought it was as solid as plate-glass. The Latin poets placed the divinities of Olympus and the stately mythological court upon this vault, above the planets and the fixed stars. Previous to the knowledge that the earth was moving in space, and that space is everywhere, theologians had installed the Trinity in the empyrean, the glorified body of Jesus, that of the Virgin Mary, the angelic hierarchy, the saints, and all the heavenly host.... A naïve missionary of the Middle Ages even tells us that, in one of his voyages in search of the terrestrial paradise, he reached the horizon where the earth and the heavens met, and that he discovered a certain point where they were not joined together, and where, by stooping his shoulders, he passed under the roof of the heavens...
L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire
Camille Flammarion
1888
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
It is impossible for two people, let alone a man and a woman, to stand on opposite sides of a
burning bush in the desert and accurately describe what they are seeing.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!