Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Of course, hardly any scientists live by a consistent creed. Scientists believe simultaneously both in theories and in models, in truth and in expediency.
And that differs from us Christians how? Other than we have a creed of Love that is.
Edit; well, maybe expediency isn't on our list. Afterall we did invent eternalism.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
God hated the chaos of the Universe
Now Now, how are you sure God hates anything?? There was a time when man stood naked, unashamed in the mist of chaos. And wasn't it the logic of a woman that got us to the place we're at?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I think we’re becoming antagonistic to one another,
I think not. I see your reply as part of fun lively discussion. If we disagree there are no consequences to worry about.
I still feel that one who meditates could be more observant, but in addition to merely observing one may need to feel the need to attach significance to what one observes.
If we fight it is only over which of us is the aloof imaginary(?) tiger and which is the hell-raising 6 year old.
I have no worries that you are going to get up in front of SuperTopo and declare that you have a list of people, "on the other side of the science fence."
Back to the either/or choice which you erroneously imputed to me a few posts earlier:
The general principle of superposition of quantum mechanics applies to the states [undisturbed motions] ... of any one dynamical system. It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states. The original state must be regarded as the result of a kind of superposition of the two or more new states, in a way that cannot be conceived on classical ideas. Any state may be considered as the result of a superposition of two or more other states, and indeed in an infinite number of ways.
Paul Dirac
If that is too science type-y consider:
There is a God, there is not a God, there both is and is not a God, there neither is a God or not a God, there once was God but no longer...
And consider that the lid may need to be removed from our box of this life to find out.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Dear blue, stop blaming a woman for the mess that men have made of the earth.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
The general principle of superposition of quantum mechanics applies to the states
[undisturbed motions] ... of any one dynamical system. It requires us to assume that
between these states there exist peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is
definitely in one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states.
The original state must be regarded as the result of a kind of superposition of the two or
more new states, in a way that cannot be conceived on classical ideas. Any state may be
considered as the result of a superposition of two or more other states, and indeed in an infinite number of ways.
Paul Dirac and MH2
Dirac was an estimable fellow who, while on staff at Oxford, could be found climbing
trees.What he is saying above is that if we wish to DO SOMETHING with QM we can work
only with some linear superposition of the individual quantum wave functions. This old idea
may be central to us here on ST.
Here on ST we keep trying to DO SOMETHING with words. Just words. And we keep
coming up with, "This is nonsense." Or even "You are arrogant" or "You scientists no longer
use experiments." My lame detector is too sensitive and so is pegged by the positions lower
than this last that surely must be out there. Word slathering can be raised to unbelievable heights in a pinch.
We see why Dirac was so enamored of the math. What do we get in return for allowing
ourselves to be bullied into accepting math is the only language we can use to get ourselves
out of Quantum Mechanical Trouble? Once pushed off from shore in the mathematical boat,
the possibility of antimatter was staring Dirac in the face. Lo and behold that lovely island
was soon actually discovered in the stream. The magnetic monopole has not been seen yet
just as we have as yet been unable to dream up a test for string theory in its horrendously
high energy regime. Patience can be a virtue. Sometimes patience is even necessary. This
will not take 2000 years, however. 2000 years is over the top.
If we can't learn to solve problems like this we probably won't be here in the year 4000.
Someone needs to do the calculation showing how much longer we can go on like this.
DARPA?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
MH2: I think not.
Ok, great.
I don’t get the Dirac quote.
“Word slathering” is an interesting expression. So is “lame detector.” The criticisms being made might be a little more substantive than those labels imply. Criticisms might be pointing out philosophical conundrums, paradoxes, dilemmas, etc.
Every discipline (to include physics) offers up a vision of reality, and then scholars build elaborate scaffolding, walls, and then embellishments upon that.
If you understand the phrase, “there’s no there, there,” then what you have is a universal criticism that can be seemingly applied to everything and every argument. In the last analysis (or struggle) you might begin to suspect that “no there, there” is indicative of what THIS really is.
But that's an existential stand that requires a person to jump off a cliff. Full commitment.
Allan Bloom wrote a book called, “The Closing of the American Mind” back in 1987. It was a book that railed against higher education as helping to lead to soulless living in contemporary society—especially among the highly educated. As the highly educated tend to go, so does the society in time. (I’m butchering the nuances in the book.)
Bloom refers to an idea of “living the theoretical life.” What he meant by that was to live a life fully engaged based upon that your experience, heart of hearts, and reason leave you with. Whatever it is that you really believe, then you live that way completely and totally, without doubt. (Perhaps this is a form of totalitarianism—but of course, the opposite of which is what Bloom is criticizing.)
When I find wide, pervasive, innumerable, holes in conventional, consensual views of reality (such as I find in all disciplines), it makes me doubt them in terms of what’s concrete (what’s really real) and serious (really, nothing).
I see people (here, for example) who admit or recognize all those paradoxes, dilemmas, conundrums, incommensurabilities, ambiguities, undefinabilities, infinities, lack of clarification about anything conventionally or consensually are indeed apparent and rampant—and then casually say, “so, what?” Honestly, I don’t get it.
Didn’t you folks get into climbing because of the personal challenges, development of character, risk, aesthetics, ethics, the excitement, what it taught you about yourselves, the presence or the feeling of being?
Me, personally, long ago I came to question most everything my colleagues said was important and serious. I *appreciate* the game (I think you engage in what shows up in front of you), but I don’t think any of it should be taken all that seriously or concretely.
Freedom comes when you cannot help but be who and what you are. It’s like a disguise or a mask that you put on: you wear the mask and disguise not so that you can pretend to be someone, but so that you can let go of who and what you think you are for a direct connection to what shows up all on its own through you, through the vehicle you call yourself (body, mind, heart, soul, etc.). When you let go, you end up channeling immense energies (the unconsciousness, e.g.,) which you cannot explain that flow through you. You become possessed. You become an actor in a play that you can watch with amusement. You unfold consciousness or awareness without the slightest bit effort, in much the same way that there is no effort in receiving perceptions. That is the Tao.
(I’m probably talking to myself, hmmmm?)
It’s possible to live the theoretical life, not just argue about it.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Actually this is great news for aging rock stars who are hell bent on continuing their performing careers even further.
Since seeing this I have a musician friend who has just booked an upcoming recording session/root canal with his dentist.
Freedom comes when you cannot help but be who and what you are.
Good line.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 7, 2015 - 11:37am PT
|
Superposition is a principle of quantum theory that describes a challenging concept about the nature and behavior of matter and forces at the sub-atomic level. The principle of superposition claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check. It is the measurement itself that causes the object to be limited to a single possibility.
--
So runs a credible source per superposition. But one must wonder if the language ("object," "it," and so on) used here is somewhat misleading.
What "object" exists in "all possible states?" And what is meant by "exists?" Is this object just theoretical, ie a potential? And if it does "exist" as "A," as well as B-Z etc. (all the other possible states), what happens after "A" is measured or observed? Do B-Z etc. all vanish, or did they never "exist" in the first place. And if "A" continues, or comes into existence once measured and observed, how is "A" different AFTER being measured as opposed to before? Was there some process by which A suddenly became concrete for the first time?
This of course begs the question: Is quantum level reality totally undifferentiated, and only becomes concrete (existing in time and space) owing to some triggering mechanism like measuring or observing?
What actually happens in the threshold between quantum and meta levels?
Contrasting to the existential level, Joe Blow might have the potential to be the greatest mountaineer in history but till Joe actually climbs a mountain in time and space, his potential remains unrealized. Joe has to take an action, he has to DO something.
What does quantum level phenomenon DO, or what is done to it, which births something on the meta level?
JL
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
I don’t get the Dirac quote.
That's OK. Let's take the case of an electron that is bound say to a positively charged nucleus. The wave equation in QM for a specific situation in which the bound electron finds itself, has solutions for particular values of electron energy. Those are eigenvalues. Dirac said the actual solution to the wave equation is a sum of all these eigen solutions each times an arbitrary multiplier. By inference the electron is in each of these states SIMULTANEOUSLY. The multipliers indicate relative probabilities for getting a specific state as the answer were we to do a measurement.
“Word slathering” is an interesting expression. So is “lame detector.” The criticisms being made might be a little more substantive than those labels imply. Criticisms might be pointing out philosophical conundrums, paradoxes, dilemmas, etc.
Thank you.
Every discipline (to include physics) offers up a vision of reality, and then scholars build elaborate scaffolding, walls, and then embellishments upon that.
No, not for physics. I will not try to speak for other disciplines. Physical theories are ways of looking at the world that allow all measurements to be seen as having no conflict with each other. These ways of viewing the world have the tremendous virtue of, our being given one measurement, we can predict other measurements. Humans are hard wired for survival by evolution so being able to predict something in the world around us has great survival value.
I was exposed to this at a very early age as my father used to take me to some of his lectures on physics given to non-coms before their deployment overseas. The government felt their troops' chances of survival would be increased if the officers knew something about trajectory physics and how useful levers can be.
If you understand the phrase, “there’s no there, there,” then what you have is a universal criticism that can be seemingly applied to everything and every argument. In the last analysis (or struggle) you might begin to suspect that “no there, there” is indicative of what THIS really is.
But that's an existential stand that requires a person to jump off a cliff. Full commitment.
Allan Bloom wrote a book called, “The Closing of the American Mind” back in 1987. It was a book that railed against higher education as helping to lead to soulless living in contemporary society—especially among the highly educated. As the highly educated tend to go, so does the society in time. (I’m butchering the nuances in the book.)
Bloom refers to an idea of “living the theoretical life.” What he meant by that was to live a life fully engaged based upon that your experience, heart of hearts, and reason leave you with. Whatever it is that you really believe, then you live that way completely and totally, without doubt. (Perhaps this is a form of totalitarianism—but of course, the opposite of which is what Bloom is criticizing.)
When I find wide, pervasive, innumerable, holes in conventional, consensual views of reality (such as I find in all disciplines), it makes me doubt them in terms of what’s concrete (what’s really real) and serious (really, nothing).
I see people (here, for example) who admit or recognize all those paradoxes, dilemmas, conundrums, incommensurabilities, ambiguities, undefinabilities, infinities, lack of clarification about anything conventionally or consensually are indeed apparent and rampant—and then casually say, “so, what?” Honestly, I don’t get it.
Didn’t you folks get into climbing because of the personal challenges, development of character, risk, aesthetics, ethics, the excitement, what it taught you about yourselves, the presence or the feeling of being?
Me, personally, long ago I came to question most everything my colleagues said was important and serious. I *appreciate* the game (I think you engage in what shows up in front of you), but I don’t think any of it should be taken all that seriously or concretely.
Freedom comes when you cannot help but be who and what you are. It’s like a disguise or a mask that you put on: you wear the mask and disguise not so that you can pretend to be someone, but so that you can let go of who and what you think you are for a direct connection to what shows up all on its own through you, through the vehicle you call yourself (body, mind, heart, soul, etc.). When you let go, you end up channeling immense energies (the unconsciousness, e.g.,) which you cannot explain that flow through you. You become possessed. You become an actor in a play that you can watch with amusement. You unfold consciousness or awareness without the slightest bit effort, in much the same way that there is no effort in receiving perceptions. That is the Tao.
(I’m probably talking to myself, hmmmm?)
Yes, I suspect so.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
The regulars on this thread, in general, are knowledgable and are articulate in presenting their points of view, which are quite varied and mostly of interest to the others. The thread could be the basis of a reality show on TV.
John S., to what extent are the paradoxes in QM associated with the way we interpret the mathematics that predicts accurate experimental results? To some of us, when we speak of the observation somehow influencing reality, we are imagining simply sitting there looking at the experiment, whereas what is actually happening is a complicated electro-physical process in the measuring equipment.
Whereas the mathematics used is metaphorical (probability wavs, etc.) the reasons it works may be non-metaphorical. And there are frequently artifacts emerging from mathematical models that present weird descriptions of "reality", such as a simple dist/rate/time problem that involves a quadratic equation, one of whose "solutions" in a trip backwards in time.
Knowing very little about physics, these comments and questions may be a tad naive!
;>)
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
A tad naive? Hardly.
Prof. Gill has pointed out an overstep on my part. All correct mathematical solutions are not automatically applicable to the world. Indeed time proceeding backward is one such completely allowed solution that theoreticians are wondering if may be represented. Under what conditions might we see it in the world. I believe the current feeling is it may be seen in worm holes but these involve energy and bending of space at stupendous scales.
ST really needs more participation by Hartouni, Bolte, Gill, and others on these topics. I would reference a discussion held in 1990 on precisely our topic here between Abdus Salam, Ed Witten and two other legendary figures. The internet is opening to us a world that before could never be seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUI2qf9uyo
Edit:
Thank you Ed. I fall into the instrumentalist camp. I was at a very impressionable age during WWII. The question as to how many of those guys I saw in freshly pressed khaki came back has not gone away.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujň de la Playa y Perrito Ruby
|
|
I'm going to have to get back to you on these last.
I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week, sometimes, to make it up.
-Mark Twain
EDIT: I don't know how it works, but I had it in mind that Doc Hartouni might follow on.
It's kinda like the "Jane you ignorant slut" point/counterpoint that used to show up on Saturday night in the old days. Somebody has to take the "I'm not high" road.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
HOOORAAAAAYYY!!!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Calling sycorax.
Calling Voltaire.
I am worried about the silkworm:
as Voltaire remarks, this is about as reasonable as if a silk-worm took his web for the limits of the universe
I cannot find Voltaire making this remark, despite the wonders of Google. The internet has managed to spread near and far the above statement by the astronomer Camille Flammarion. I regret adding another stick to that pile.
Howsoever,
1. Do silkworms have the concept limits of the universe?
2. Can a silkworm believe that his web is the limits of the universe?
0. Do silkworms have webs?
Voltaire is said to have kept silkworms and here is what Google tells us of his remarks about them (other than the Flammarion Voltaire virus):
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
"Since the 1950s, antirealism is more modest, usually instrumentalism, permitting talk of unobservable aspects, but ultimately discarding the very question of realism and posing scientific theory as a tool to help humans make predictions, not to attain metaphysical understanding of the world" (Wiki)
Oh oh. This doesn't portend well for JL's metaphysical researches.
Excellent Wiki article that I had not seen before. It's interesting that of fifteen interpretations, only three involve a role of causal consciousness.
Thanks for the links, Ed.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Allan Bloom wrote a book called, “The Closing of the American Mind” back in 1987.
He sure did and though Mr. Bloom has taken sharp criticism for some of his views in that work the first chapter should be read seriously by all as an indictment of relativism in education and society in general.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
^^^^^
Yes.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jstan:
Thank you for your explanation of Dirac. I’m hobbling along trying to follow. I have some questions. It seems to me that you are backing into the relationships empirically. You may stipulate the relationships (even with probabilities) but only after the fact. Can you say why it happens that way? Shall we end up at some absolute variable or coefficient that “just is?” Do you think there is a reason for any of it?
(Thanks for your effort. I’m a poor student.)
I get “survival value.” What is most instrumental may not be what is true at the end of the day. Expediency provides respite for those who feel it important to be busy. Virtue, as you mention, is usually its own reward for those who share its value. Any *other* primal value would probably create a totally new reality, I should think. It is possible that there could be other forces or values running the show. If you were a capricious omniscient and omnipotent being, it could be anything that your mind (Jstan’s) couldn’t even imagine. (I know we’re supposedly in this universe; I get that.)
In my limited research in climbing, by their own writings, I found some climbers who climbed for achievement and flow. Then there were a few that seemed to eschew achievement and flow for style. Style is contrary (but not contradictory) to achievement and flow. It’s a different value that sets up a different view of reality.
Values create a foundation for what can or should be counted as significant.
Prediction for an instrumental purpose that appears to be immensely self serving.
What if serving others was seen as more significant in ways that can’t be measured by today’s standards? What if perceiving a non-dual relationship to everything were a primal value? It would not be just a question of metrics, but of view. One would have to step way far away from a scene to see the big picture. Individual instrumental values could well be completely dysfunction but for the teaching it will foster.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!