Superposition revisited: Proposed resolution of double-slit experiment paradox using Feynman path integral formalism

October 2, 2014 by Stuart Mason Dambrot, Phys.org feature

Two-slit experiment. Inset shows a typical interference pattern obtained by assuming ψAB = ψA + ψB. Credit: Source: R. Sawant, J. Samuel, A. Sinha, S. Sinha, and U. Sinha, Nonclassical Paths in Quantum Interference Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120406 (2014).
(Phys.org) —The Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment, published in 1926 by Erwin Schrödinger, may be the most widely-known metaphorical explanation of quantum superposition and collapse. (Superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics stating that a physical system – such as a photon or electron – simultaneously exists partly in all theoretically possible states; but when measured or observed gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible states.)

That being said, the earlier foundational has the advantage of being, well, an actual experiment that provides a window into this often counterintuitive realm. (As a somewhat surprising aside, while the Michelson–Morley experiment, published in 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, demonstrated temporal coherence, a much earlier device – Thomas Young's 1803 double-slit interferometer – demonstrated spatial coherence, contradicting Newtonian physics a century before quantum mechanics and special relativity by showing that light, like sound, was also a wave motion.) Despite its long legacy, however, the double-slit experiment remains the subject of research. One such focus is a curious discrepancy: The Schrödinger (yes, the same Schrödinger) equation, or wavefunction– which describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes with time – when both slits are open differs slightly from the sum of the wavefunctions with the two slits alternately open. The problem is that the three alternatives (slits A and B, slit A, slit B) correspond to separate boundary conditions – equations that specify the behavior of the solution to a system of differential equations at the boundary of that system's domain – meaning that superposition does not apply.

Recently, however, scientists at the Raman Research Institute and the Indian Institute of Science, both in Bangalore, India, theoretically resolved this paradox by quantifying nonclassical path contributions in quantum interference experiments using the Feynman path integral formalism, which involves an integration over all possible paths that can be taken by the particle through the two slits, thereby calculating a quantum amplitude by replacing the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinite number of possible trajectories. This allows them to replace the approximate wavefunction with both slits open (ψAB = ψA + ψB) with an integral that includes both the classical paths – the nearly straight paths from the source to the detector through either slit – and the nonclassical, or looped, paths that make a small but finite contribution to the total intensity at the detector screen (ψAB = ψA + ψB + ψL).

In so doing, they successfully quantified the effect of such nonclassical paths in interference experiments, which in turn quantifies the deviation from the common but incorrect application of the in different possible experimental conditions. Although the researchers acknowledge that it would be difficult to create a direct experimental demonstration of the existence of these nonclassical paths, they conclude that since contributions from such paths can be significant. They therefore propose simple three-slit interference experiments to directly confirm their existence.

Path integrals in a lab. The green line demonstrates a representative classical path. The purple line demonstrates a representative nonclassical path. The various length parameters are marked; d designates the interslit distance, w designates the slit width, h designates the slit height, L designates the distance from the source to the slit plane, and D designates the distance from the slit plane to the detector plane. Source: R. Sawant, J. Samuel, A. Sinha, S. Sinha, and U. Sinha, Nonclassical Paths in Quantum Interference Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120406 (2014).

Prof. Urbasi Sinha, Raman Research Institute and Prof. Aninda Sinha, Indian Institute of Science discussed the paper that they and their co-authors published in Physical Review Letters. One of their main challenges was at the heart of their research: using the Feynman path integral formalism to quantify contributions from nonclassical paths to provide a measurable deviation from naive applications of the superposition principle. "In order to isolate the effect of the nonclassical paths we used the Sorkin parameter as proposed by Rafael D. Sorkin1," Aninda tells Phys.org. "Originally this parameter was proposed to test the Born rule, but it turned out to be a useful way to isolate the contribution of the curved paths." The Born rule (published by Max Born in his 1926 paper2) is a law of quantum mechanics which gives the probability that a measurement on a quantum system will yield a given result. "In addition, an earlier classical simulation of the Maxwell's equations3 led us into thinking about the problem in the realm of quantum mechanics."

Of equal import to the scientists – and a challenge that lies ahead of them, as well as to those researchers who respond to their proposal – is presenting a direct experimental demonstration for the existence of these nonclassical paths. "The nonclassical paths have always existed – the path integral formalism requires one to take into account the contribution from all possible paths," Urbasi explains. "However, these paths always tend to have contributions secondary to those from the classically dominant paths that extremize the action." This occurs in accordance with the action principle, which states that a particular functional of all paths that a particle can take between two points is extremized along the correct classical solution. "Thus, in spite of being present, the contribution to a certain propagator tends to be much smaller than the one from the classically dominant ones," Urbasi adds.

"This is what makes an experimental demonstration challenging," Urbasi continues, "since it requires a signal-to-noise ratio high enough to enable a non-zero measurement of a parameter known as kappa (κ) – the normalized version of the Sorkin parameter – as a function of detector position. Having said that, the path integral formalism enabled us to use the kappa symmetry to our advantage: Because it ensures that it is non-zero only in the presence of nonclassical paths, and zero otherwise, it provides a precise and convincing demonstration of the presence of these nonclassical paths."

Moving forward, Urbasi notes that using nonclassical path effects to model possible decoherence mechanisms in interferometer-based quantum computing applications is a direction the scientists wish to investigate in the near future. "Any quantum simulation which appeals to the phenomenon of interference should benefit from our approach – and regarding quantum computing itself, an interferometer-based quantum computing architecture immediately comes to mind. Our work highlights and suggests an experimental proposal to quantify non classical paths in interference experiments and hence comments on the commonly used naive application of the superposition principle in interference experiments. If a successful experiment is performed, then that will prove our assertions. Completing the picture in so far as application of the superposition principle in interference phenomena is concerned should definitely have ramifications in situations where interference is used as a resource."

Other areas of research will benefit from their study, Urbasi says, because their work gives them a more complete understanding of slit-based interference. "Richard Feynman famously said that 'the double-slit experiment has in it the heart of . In reality, it contains the only mystery.4' Therefore, a more complete understanding there will be useful in all areas where interference is considered a resource. These include interferometer-based quantum computing protocols as well as observational radio astronomy data related to the early universe. In fact," Aninda points out, referring to the potential role of Feynman's path integral formalism and thereby looped nonclassical paths in the effort to construct a unified theory of quantum gravity, "there have been recent proposals in the cosmology literature which deal with a potential modification to the Born rule. For such modifications to be experimentally testable one will need precision calculation such as ours."

Explore further: Duality principle is 'safe and sound': Researchers clear up apparent violation of wave-particle duality

More information: Nonclassical Paths in Quantum Interference Experiments, Physical Review Letters 113, 120406: Published 19 September 2014, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120406

Related:

1Quantum Mechanics As Quantum Measure Theory, Modern Physics Letters A 09, 3119 (1994), doi:10.1142/S021773239400294X (Earlier PDF version: arXiv:gr-qc/9401003v2)

2Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge, Max Born, Zeitschrift für Physik, 37, #12 (Dec. 1926), pp. 863–867 (German); English translation, On the quantum mechanics of collisions, in Quantum theory and measurement, Section I.2, J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press (Paperback Edition, July 14, 2014), ISBN-13: 978-0691613161

3Analysis of multipath interference in three-slit experiments, Physical Review A 85, 012101 (4 January 2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.012101

4The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I: The New Millennium Edition: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat (October 4, 2011), Chapter 37 (Quantum Behavior), page 37-2 (An experiment with bullets). Paperback ISBN-13: 978-0465024933 | Online

Related Stories

Patterns of interfering massive particles

March 4, 2014

Two-particle interference has been the focus of many studies, specifically in quantum optics with photons. However, interference between two massive, identical particles is not so well understood. In a study published in ...

Recommended for you

New thermoelectric material delivers record performance

January 17, 2019

Taking advantage of recent advances in using theoretical calculations to predict the properties of new materials, researchers reported Thursday the discovery of a new class of half-Heusler thermoelectric compounds, including ...

Zirconium isotope a master at neutron capture

January 17, 2019

The probability that a nucleus will absorb a neutron is important to many areas of nuclear science, including the production of elements in the cosmos, reactor performance, nuclear medicine and defense applications.

393 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TulsaMikel
1 / 5 (14) Oct 02, 2014
If the fundamental basics of the makeup of matter and energy in the universe following these principles. Only the potential of something exist before it's observation. The universe was only a possibility and didn't exist until the very instant an organism developed the ability to observe it. Spooky action at a distance indeed!
PavelN
5 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2014
The second figure in this article is wrong. Here is the right figure:
http://journals.a...2/medium
bcegkmqsw
1 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2014
There was the Bose (Bose Einstein) statistics define probabilities at quantum levels differently than the standard basyian statistics. Plus it would be practically impossible to have exact identical slits.
So, I doubt if the basis for any experiment is the PRESUMED statistics than the results cannot be used to deduce the truth as it should be.
smd
5 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2014
Thank you, Pavel. (Actually, they were both wrong and have been corrected.)
Returners
2 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2014
Doesn't this violate the mid-point rule and the principle of least action?

It also appears to violate conservation of angular momentum, since the photon would be arriving at it's final location from a different angle and along a curved path compared to where it started, without any obvious exchange of momenta taking place.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2014
didn't exist until the very instant an organism developed the ability to observe it.


In quantum mechanics, "observation" doesn't mean observation by a living thing, but merely the interaction with the rest of stuff - causality.

The interaction of everything with everything basically produces some consistent version of how things are be based on the laws that govern how they can be, but until that happens things can be any way they please.

In my opinion, since quantum mechanics allows the history of a thing to change based on how it interacts in the future, and every interaction is quantum in nature, it's quite plausible that the whole history is actually continuously changing in a way that it's consistent with itself and the future just like the photon that assumes a certain path once it's observed to take it, but not before. As our "light horizon" grows and new stuff comes into interaction with our observable universe, everything we did changes to satisfy the causality.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2014
Forty-some years since I first studied this double-slit experiment, but trying to grasp it *still* makes my head hurt...
Goika
Oct 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Oct 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
arom
Oct 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dan42day
3.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2014
In quantum mechanics, "observation" doesn't mean observation by a living thing, but merely the interaction with the rest of stuff - causality.


In that case, the cat is dead as soon as the particle strikes the Geiger counter and sets off the cascade of events leading to the release of the poison regardless of whether or not anyone looks in the box.

Does the cat's prospective matter in this? Is it aware it is still alive? I assume it can't know it is dead.

If I have a heart attack and die tonight, am I still semi-alive until someone discovers my body? Do the cockroaches feasting on my corpse count?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2014
Doesn't this violate the mid-point rule and the principle of least action?
"Least action" is defined under the path integral approach as the shortest path; the path integral approach notes that this is not the *only* path possible, and it is the sum of the paths that defines the path integral. Note also that the shortest path is also the average of all possible paths.

It also appears to violate conservation of angular momentum, since the photon would be arriving at it's final location from a different angle and along a curved path compared to where it started, without any obvious exchange of momenta taking place.
The momentum is offset by an opposite path.

The path integral approach defines a "particle" as the collection of all possible paths a classical particle could take. It's not a little ball.

BTW, good questions. I gave you 5.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2014
Forty-some years since I first studied this double-slit experiment, but trying to grasp it *still* makes my head hurt...
Feynman said it's the most important experiment in the history of physics. A lot of people think he's right.

If I have a heart attack and die tonight, am I still semi-alive until someone discovers my body? Do the cockroaches feasting on my corpse count?
Einstein asked the same question about the Moon if nobody's looking at it.
smd
5 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2014
If I have a heart attack and die tonight, am I still semi-alive until someone discovers my body?
Einstein asked the same question about the Moon if nobody's looking at it.


Don't forget Kant and falling trees...
http://blog.oup.c...quantum/
tigger
5 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2014
In quantum mechanics, "observation" doesn't mean observation by a living thing, but merely the interaction with the rest of stuff - causality.


I wish this point was made more often... the "observer" concept has often been very confusing because of the connotation that an observer must be a biological creature or a collection of atoms that makes up a measuring device. As if that collection of atoms somehow magically has a property that collapses wave forms... as if the same collection of atoms was re-arranged so it wasn't a human eye or a measuring stick add wouldn't collapse wave forms.

Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2014
In that case, the cat is dead as soon as the particle strikes the Geiger counter and sets off the cascade of events leading to the release of the poison regardless of whether or not anyone looks in the box.


True.

The question of the Shrödiger's cat is whether the randomly emitted particle hits the detector or not - not whether the cat dies as a result.

If the trap is triggered, the cat is dead. If it wasn't triggered, the cat is alive. The trick is that neither possibility has to be true before the box is opened, so neither is - or rather both are until the box is opened and the interaction with the rest of the universe stops the roulette wheel and decides whether the cat died or not.

QM suggests that anything that isn't presently interacting with the rest is essentially "free".
In principle, as long as we haven't opened the box, the cat in the perfectly isolating box could be anything. Once we open the box, there has to have been a cat in there all along.

Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2014
There's a perfectly good metaphysical rationale to this.

If you have something that you can't see, can't touch, can get no information out of, it can be said to not exist. If removing said thing from reality makes no difference whatsoever, it didn't exist in the first place because the only way you can make no difference is if you change exactly nothing.

So the perfectly isolating box in the thought experiment is a device that actually removes stuff from our reality, because it stops it from making a difference. In essence, by putting the cat in the box we destroy it - so also by opening the box we create the cat in the box anew and decide whether it had died or not. Whatever happened in the box isn't determined in the box, but outside the box.

The same should be true for imperfectly isolating boxes, where the aspects that aren't coupled to the outside reality are free. If a cat went in, a rabbit cannot come out, because the box isn't causally isolating, but the cat may have died.
Eseta
Oct 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
russell_russell
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2014
https://www.physi....697647/

Further reading in an attempt to understand the research noted in the Physorg article here from a different approach other than Feynman formalism.

Two take-away messages for me.
1.) A universal wave function where everything is entangled or if correctly interpreted:
In principle, as long as we haven't opened the box, the cat in the perfectly isolating box could be anything. - E


2.) Time is QM emergent .

Further reading link is informative (physics forum from June 18, 2013.)

russell_russell
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2014
Path Superposition Vs Entanglement Superposition
Same physics forum author.
https://www.physi....733119/

14 January, 2014

Recommended;
All "similar threads" to Path Superposition Vs Entanglement Superposition.
Wonderful Forums.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2014
..."observation" doesn't mean observation by a living thing, ..


I wish this point was made more often... the "observer" concept has often been very confusing because of the connotation that an observer must be a biological creature or a collection of atoms that makes up a measuring device. As if that collection of atoms somehow magically has a property that collapses wave forms...


But there IS a fundamental difference between a conscious observer and a measuring device. It is why there is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function, and the state-reduction, or collapse of the wave-function, upon a measurement. Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either.

You could in principal treat another observer (the physicist cat) as just a quantum system and describe the entire interacting systems with a wave-function,.. but then, You as the conscious observer are back to square one.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2014
Where do the other wave-function components go, all the other possible states, upon an observation? Decoherence does not explane it apart from appearance. Some say the wave-function does not collapse but continues deterministically by spitting off into "many-worlds". But this does not explain why we are conscious of a consistent world, and in any case enters into metaphysics.

The distinction between conscious observation and a measuring apparatus considered as a quantum system on to itself, is that we imploy Concepts that don't themselves have a independent existence,.... the wave-function is a collapse into concepts. Reality is made to conformed to our a-priori concepts, not the other way around.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2014
If I have a heart attack and die tonight, am I still semi-alive until someone discovers my body?


Don't forget Kant and falling trees...
http://blog.oup.c...quantum/


The wave-function itself should not be mistaken as a physical wave. Such an attitude leads to metaphysics,... as science is ONLY based on observation which means defacto collapse of the wave-function. Phenomenal reality, the realm of science, necessarily has a component that is mind dependent. We can't get out of our own intellectual way to 'observe' as a quantum system.

Kant's epistemology provides the reason for the quantum weirdness imo. A student of Luis De'Broglie, ....Bernard d'Espagnat draws the same conclusion as Kant except through more physical arguments.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2014
,... my review of this book and further points on this is here.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2014
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp...p001.pdf

"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium"

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant ... may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2014
You could in principal treat another observer (the physicist cat) as just a quantum system and describe the entire interacting systems with a wave-function,.. but then, You as the conscious observer are back to square one.


Why?

The observer IS a quantum system just as the observed system, and when they come together their wavefunctions simply join. The mutual state they assume is then internally consistent regardless of the state they're in.

So the scientists has observed both a dead cat and a living cat, until another person joins in and observes what the observation was... and so forth. The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe essentially at the speed of light and combines with the other wavefunctions until every wavefunction "agrees" what actually happened.

The fact that the event can flip from "dead cat" to "alive cat" at any point in the future will be invisible to any concious or non-concious observer because their history changes with it.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2014
We must use "life" to make any inference. Thus, to use "life" to state otherwise is complete hypocrisy. Did you get that?


No. Your assertion appears to be nonsensical. Deconstructing your sentence to plain english gives:

"We must use 'life' to reach any conclusion about something from known facts or evidence"

I don't understand what this means, or how it would result in hypocricy.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2014
We must use "life" to make any inference.


Though maybe you didn't mean to use quotation marks to mean the word "life", but instead intended to say that we need to be alive to make any inference, which is a tautology. We are alive and make inferences, therefore by definition we have to be alive to make inferences - otherwise we wouldn't be us. Get it?

That doesn't mean something else has to be alive to come to conclusions about things. For example, a robot that is programmed to take in facts and make conclusions about them isn't alive, yet it's perfectly capable of making an observation in the same sense as the scientist who opens the Shrödiger's box and says "Yep, it's dead".

That's because "observation" reduces to taking in information from another system and turning it into some behaviour according to the information gained. People do it just as rocks or atoms do it.

If you think observation requires something more, you're appealing to the supernatural and mystical.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe essentially at the speed of light and combines with the other wavefunctions until every wavefunction "agrees" what actually happened.


Yes correct, that is called decoherence. However the reason why it does not resolve the measurement problem and why a conscious observer is fundamentally different than just quantum systems interacting, is that a) the wave-function as a superposition of all possible states is not itself observable, b) decoherence implies Loss of quantum behaviour , evolving to the appearance of classical intuitive behaviour even though we know everything is quantum. But we don't have an issue with the classical realm, so this side steps the question....
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
Sub: Cosmic Vision of the Universe: Wake Up
Scientists must ponder over to comprehend Dimensional Knowledge Base
http://cosmologyv...cal.html
Super imposion of this matrix has been presented by me at COSPAR2013
Vidyardhi Nanduri [Space cosmology-independant Research]
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
.... which is why can't the cat observer in the box observe both live and dead cat, why can't we observe the entire wave-function, why does it collapse upon a measurement with all other possibilities vanishing? (Why the incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the state-vector and it's non-deterministic projection onto an observable basis?)

An omnipotent quantum-physicist could observe a classical-physicist observing a quantum system and see no essential difference between the classical-physicist's mind, body and experimental apparatus and the quantum system being observed by him. The omnipotent quantum-physicist can see the entire wave-function.

Our minds evolved to function in the classical realm however with mind dependent conditions [a-priori intellectual faculties,]... limiting what "observable" itself even means. In QM there are observable states and there are also non-observable states. Why? Because "classical observation" is not quantum interaction.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2014
However the reason why it does not resolve the measurement problem and why a conscious observer is fundamentally different than just quantum systems interacting, is that a) the wave-function as a superposition of all possible states is not itself observable


That's a pretty big non-sequitur. If the concious observer isn't a quantum system like everything else, then what is it? A magical soul somehow exempt from the rules of nature?

I don't understand your problem.

decoherence implies Loss of quantum behaviour , evolving to the appearance of classical intuitive behaviour even though we know everything is quantum


Yes, and this is a problem because?

The internal constraints of a large quantum system force it to behave more than less in a classical way with respect to itself. We still know it's quantum just the same as you aren't fooled to think the pixels on your screen don't exist just because you're too far away to see them apart.

Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2014
That's' a dismissal use of "tautology".


That was the point. It's dismissing your argument as circular of itself.

By saying this you imply that because something is proved real it doesn't matter.


No. I was directly pointing out that you didn't manage to prove anything.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2014
the question.... which is why can't the cat observer in the box observe both live and dead cat


Because they are mutually exclusive possibilities.

Think about it this way. If you sit in the box that is isolated from the rest of the universe to watch the cat, there isn't one you that sees the cat dead or alive, but a superposition of a you that sees the cat alive and a you that sees the cat dead, because you and the cat are the same quantum system. Neither is aware of any other possibility. In each version, the contents of your brain are different, so your observation of the situation is different, and when the box is opened only one you walks out.

Which one depends on what constraints the rest of the universe puts on you, so it's the whole of reality that decides whether you saw the cat die.

There is no possibility of a "dead-alive" cat because it would be physically impossible for it to be so, so there cannot be a third version of you that observes such a zombie cat.

Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2014
There is no possibility of a "dead-alive" cat because it would be physically impossible for it to be so


Or better put: physically meaningless to be so. There is no such state of being as "dead-alive" state.

why does it collapse upon a measurement with all other possibilities vanishing?


It doesn't, really. The larger quantum system still contains numerous possibilities in superposition. Each possibility is just not aware of the others, so in each of these realities the world seems to behave in a single determined manner - at least on the large scale of it.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2014
Our minds evolved to function in the classical realm however with mind dependent conditions [a-priori intellectual faculties,]... limiting what "observable" itself even means. In QM there are observable states and there are also non-observable states. Why? Because "classical observation" is not quantum interaction.


But that's just semantics. Are you seriously arguing that quantum mechanics can't work like it does because you understand some word slightly differently?

"Observation" in quantum mechanics is defined as exchange of information between quantum systems, approximately speaking, and should not be confused with any definitions of the world that assume a concious observer.

That isn't to say that it is exactly what "observation" means, but exactly what quantum phycisists mean when they say "observation".
smd
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2014
Perhaps it would be help to point out that (1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death, and (4) quantum events are a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of spacetime.

Therefore, IMO DavidW is making a completely incoherent and thinly-guised religious argument that (a) elevates "truth" to an axiomatic foundation reminiscent of "faith" and (b) makes quantum reality dependent upon human consciousness, which as per point 4 above is patently absurd.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
However the reason why it does not resolve the measurement problem and why a conscious observer is fundamentally different than just quantum systems interacting, is that a) the wave-function as a superposition of all possible states is not itself observable

That's a pretty big non-sequitur. If the conscious observer isn't a quantum system like everything else, then what is it? A magical soul somehow exempt from the rules of nature?


I did not deny that a conscious observer is itself a complex quantum system like all other such systems.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
decoherence implies Loss of quantum behaviour , evolving to the appearance of classical intuitive behaviour even though we know everything is quantum


Yes, and this is a problem because?

The internal constraints of a large quantum system force it to behave more than less in a classical way with respect to itself. We still know it's quantum..:


This is what I just stated and explained why it's a problem for you if you expect it to resolve the "measurement problem", to equate "observation" with "interaction".
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
the question.... which is why can't the cat observer in the box observe both live and dead cat


Because they are mutually exclusive possibilities. [....]

There is no possibility of a "dead-alive" cat because it would be physically impossible for it to be so, so there cannot be a third version of you that observes such a zombie cat


What can you mean by "mutually exclusive possibilities" and "physically impossible", except only in relation to mind dependent observation? It begs the question at hand. A quantum system is described as a superposition of all possibilities.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
Our minds evolved to function in the classical realm however with mind dependent conditions [a-priori intellectual faculties,]... limiting what "observable" itself even means. In QM there are observable states and there are also non-observable states. Why? Because "classical observation" is not quantum interaction.


But that's just semantics. Are you seriously arguing that quantum mechanics can't work like it does because you understand some word slightly differently?


No, you can replace "observation" with "measurement" in everything I posted above,.. they are typically used interchangeably. I am referring to what is known as "the measurement problem".

Which as I stated above, is the "collapse of the wave-function" upon a measurement. Sure, you can explain it away by mumbling about unobservable multi-realities, but this only begs the question once again and has zero bearing on a particular measurement.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function representing the system and the indeterministic state reduction. This ONLY occurs during a measurement/observation. This is a unresolved problem in QM, except by reference to "many world" like interpretations.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
That a conscious observer is himself a quantum system, does not imply that mind itself operates on quantum principals. If this were so, we would not view QM as non-intuitive.

The equipment used in experiments is an extension of the conditions imposed by the conscious observer operating classically, in it's design. For example, locality, counterfactuality, space, time, casualty, are from qm perspective, artificial constraints, but necessary for macroscopic equipment and the minds that designed them.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2014
What can you mean by "mutually exclusive possibilities" and "physically impossible", except only in relation to mind dependent observation? It begs the question at hand. A quantum system is described as a superposition of all possibilities.


I corrected: physically meaningless state.

A system we define as "alive" has distinct properties from a system we define as dead. These properties exist regardless of us. We simpy identify them and give them a name. Now, when "alive" is defined as having opposite properties to "dead", then they are mutually exclusive. Where would you go for example, if you were physically travelling left and right at the same time? No such state can be observed because any such state would be self-contradictory - instead, a particle that is said to be in superposition of travelling left and right is always observed to travel in one direction.

And if you were travelling with the particle, you would only observe going in one direction.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2014
(3) does not follow from (1)(2).


They're all premises, not conclusions.

This is what I just stated and explained why it's a problem for you if you expect it to resolve the "measurement problem", to equate "observation" with "interaction".


What exactly do you think the measurement problem is?

That a conscious observer is himself a quantum system, does not imply that mind itself operates on quantum principals. If this were so, we would not view QM as non-intuitive.


Non-sequitur.

There's nothing inherent in a mind that would force it to "intuitively" understand its own operation. Intuitiveness has nothing to do with the matter anyhow because reality does not have to conform to our expectations, and our expectations do not have to conform to reality.
smd
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2014
Eikka,

(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

>> You erroneously impute sequential dependence where none exists. These are a series of independent points. The only conclusion was that concerning DavidW's arguments.

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.

>> Incorrect in certain cases:
http://www.scienc...9190194I

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function representing the system and the indeterministic state reduction. This ONLY occurs during a measurement/observation. This is a unresolved problem in QM, except by reference to "many world" like interpretations.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.


>> Incorrect in certain cases:
http://www.scienc...9190194I


It is already implied that a wave-function is an interference of probability amplitudes, which is why some states get ruled out, in destructive interference. We're talking about the "collapse of the wave function" upon a measurement. This is not explained by the wave-function leaking into the environment or experimental equipment, as in Decoherence,.... as there is NO collapsing wave-function in decoherence,... there is no break from deterministic evolution of the state.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2014
This is not explained by the wave-function leaking into the environment or experimental equipment


Why not?

If the environment is yet another wavefunction that behaves according to the same rules as the first one, which is already an interference of probability amplitudes, then the measurement is simply adding more interference. It's not qualitively different from what the wavefunction already is before the measurement.

The fact that the wavefunction seems to collapse must then be simply due to the destructive interference of the local universe ruling out more states until there's just one left - or - we might exist in a many world scenario where many possible states are still in superposition but in each state we're only experiencing that particular one.

These two scenarios don't rule out each other either, because information doesn't propagate at infinite speed. Some details can remain indeterminate locally until something else requires them to pick a state.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
What can you mean by "mutually exclusive possibilities" and "physically impossible", except only in relation to mind dependent observation? It begs the question at hand....


A system we define as "alive" has distinct properties from a system we define as dead. These properties exist regardless of us. We simpy identify them and give them a name. Now, when "alive" is defined as having opposite properties to "dead", then they are mutually exclusive.


Yes, you can have dual Hilbert spaces where one is the Fourier transform of the other. This would mean that the two spaces of possible observable vales are mutually exclusive. You can have a position basis OR a momentum basis,... but not both at the same time in the same experiment. In addition the experimental design supplies the Hilbert basis to start with.

Upon a measurement the wave-function of possible Position states OR possible Momentum states is Collapsed into a value, and begins to evolve anew.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
This is not explained by the wave-function leaking into the environment or experimental equipment


Why not?

If the environment is yet another wavefunction that behaves according to the same rules as the first one, which is already an interference of probability amplitudes, then the measurement is simply adding more interference.


It's different because in decoherence, where the wave-function leaks into the experimental equipment and or the environment, all the information is retained, and it is deterministic. If the wave-function were a substantive physical wave, it would be observable as such and be deterministic.

In contrast during a measurement there is information loss once a observable value is obtained,... the wave-function takes a non-smooth jump to the observable basis value, then starts its evolution over.

Also, in an actual experiment the decoherence is controlled, which is to say multiple measurements made before it becomes a disturbing factor.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2014
Yes, you can have dual Hilbert spaces where...


Or we could use a more plain example in a case where the combination of two possibilities IS actually physically meaningful, to illustrate the point.

I'm assuming you're familiar with the macroscopic superposition experiment where they put a small lever to oscillate in two different directions simultaneously.

A lever can oscillate in an up-down direction, or in a left-right direction, or both simultaneously. The first state makes the lever's motion occupy space in a vertical plane, the second state makes it occupy a horizontal plane, and the third state makes it occupy a circular (conical) shape.

But the quantum superposition of the first two states does not produce the third state even though the combination of the two is physically meaningful. It makes the motion of the lever occupy a cross-shaped space. If one tries to measure which state it is, it collapses within the cross, and not in the cone.

(--->)
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2014
(---->)

Of course such a lever could make more complex figures, but that's not the main point. The point is that the superposition clearly isn't a "dead AND alive" situation even if "dead" and "alive" weren't the logical inverse of one another, but somehow the states exist independently.

What that actually means is a question of metaphysics.
smd
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2014
Metaphysics is the term for that which we con't yet understand or can't yet explain...and, as David HIlbert said so beautifully in his address to the Society of German Scientists and Physicians in Königsberg (8 September 1930), "Wir müssen wissen — wir werden wissen!" ("We must know — we will know!:).
.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
Metaphysics also concerns statements that are made about things that are not observable. The notion that the wave-function is a substantive physical wave is metaphysical. Solutions that are proposed to solve the 'measurement problem' and imply a substantive existence to the wave-function end up being metaphysical,... because they contain elements that are unobservable,.... pilot-wave,... many-worlds.

It can be explained instead by epistemology. In other words, the measurement problem and quantum strangeness in general is a symptom of a classically evolved mind applied to the quantum realm. It is not a failure of theory.
smd
5 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2014
Metaphysics also concerns statements that are made about things that are not observable.

Not observable yet: In naming ideas that have no physical ideats at the time of said naming, metaphysics creates the very situation you correctly describe - i.e., the neural basis of perception and cognition, and thereby language, evolved in a macroscopic context.

Consider the charmingly simple observation by Amanda Gefter that "Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2014
From the article:

Although the researchers acknowledge that it would be difficult to create a direct experimental demonstration of the existence of these nonclassical paths, they conclude that since contributions from such paths can be significant.
Wouldn't these "non-classical paths" require the speed of light to vary?

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2014
Metaphysics also concerns statements that are made about things that are not observable.

Not observable yet: In naming ideas that have no physical ideats at the time of said naming, metaphysics creates the very situation you correctly describe - i.e., the neural basis of perception and cognition, and thereby language, evolved in a macroscopic context.

Consider the charmingly simple observation by Amanda Gefter that "Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."


True, but in the case of 'many-worlds' the very idea contains within itself the impossibility of observation even in principal,... whether it is not taken literally or is just a mathematical blanket tossed over the elephant.
smd
5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2014
True, but in the case of 'many-worlds' the very idea contains within itself the impossibility of observation even in principal,... whether it is not taken literally or is just a mathematical blanket tossed over the elephant.


Agreed re: the many-worlds interpretation - but with the following caveat: The terms "impossible" and "never" as bound to a current science, mathematics and technology, and therefore subject to invalidation when used to evaluate possible future scenarios. (The history of science and technology has repeatedly demonstrated this.) This phenomenon is yet another cognitive bias due to our evolutionary heritage. To wit,

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
- Albert Einstein

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2014
That being said, the earlier foundational double-slit experiment has the advantage of being, well, an actual experiment that provides a window into this often counterintuitive realm.
I suppose you can perform the Schrödinger s Cat experiment as an "actual experiment," but you won't learn anything new from it. Unless you liked the cat. Chuckle.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2014
As if that collection of atoms somehow magically has a property that collapses wave forms... as if the same collection of atoms was re-arranged so it wasn't a human eye or a measuring stick add wouldn't collapse wave forms.
Yes.

This is the basis of "decoherence." Which, in turn, is the basis of the "consistent histories" interpretation of QM.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2014
2.) Time is QM emergent .
Interesting. Please expand on this.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2014
Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either.
How could it? Decoherence is not an interpretation of QM, it's merely an observation; a brute fact, if you will. All interpretations solve the measurement problem, but they solve it different conceptual ways. There is, so far, no means of selecting among interpretations of QM (at least the valid ones). It may be a lemma of physics (like the wave/particle duality) that there can be no such means.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2014
From the article:

Although the researchers acknowledge that it would be difficult to create a direct experimental demonstration of the existence of these nonclassical paths, they conclude that since contributions from such paths can be significant.
Wouldn't these "non-classical paths" require the speed of light to vary?
No. They are not local to the interaction that decoheres the photon. In the Feynman path integral formalism, the more unlikely the path (in classical terms), the less it contributes to the path integral; but all *possible* paths contribute *something* to it, even if they didn't happen/couldn't have happened in classical terms. This is the way that QM is different from classical mechanics, right at its heart. We don't know what happens between the point where a quantum was emitted, and the point where it was detected. We only know the beginning and end points. This is the basis of Feynman's "shut up and calculate" quote.

Good question. 5 stars.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2014
Eikka, smd, well argued. Noumenon, not so much.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either.
How could it?


Why are you asking me this question? It was Eikka and smd's "well argued" posts that put that notion forward,... so evidently you agree with me and not them. Are you confused or did you even read the above posts?

Decoherence is not an interpretation of QM, it's merely an observation; a brute fact, if you will. All interpretations solve the measurement problem, but they solve it different conceptual ways. There is, so far, no means of selecting among interpretations of QM (at least the valid ones). It may be a lemma of physics (like the wave/particle duality) that there can be no such means.


Why are you telling me this? Where did I say that decoherence was an interpretation of qm?
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2014
From the article:

Although the researchers acknowledge that it would be difficult to create a direct experimental demonstration of the existence of these nonclassical paths, they conclude that since contributions from such paths can be significant.
Wouldn't these "non-classical paths" require the speed of light to vary?
No. They are not local to the interaction that decoheres the photon. In the Feynman path integral formalism, the more unlikely the path (in classical terms), the less it contributes to the path integral; but all *possible* paths contribute *something* to it, even if they didn't happen/couldn't have happened in classical terms. This is the way that QM is different from classical mechanics, right at its heart. We don't know what happens between the point where a quantum was emitted, and the point where it was detected. We only know the beginning and end points. This is the basis of Feynman's "shut up and calculate" quote.

Good question. 5 stars.
Thanks. And great response. 5 stars.

I get that in QM it is all about the final measurements and not the unseen action. But supposing the possible paths were manipulated in different ways, would you get different doppler shifts?
russell_russell
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2014
Time is QM emergent.
Interesting. Please expand on this. - DS


A universal wave function 'evolves'. ..before'(?) we discuss 'measurement', 'observation', 'decoherence' and 'collapse'.
QM provides a meaningful platform to discuss the latter four points of any model brought up so far on this thread.

How does the Zeno Quantum Effect dovetail into article and all of the commentary put forth by the astute, ardent and helpful commentary contributors here?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2014
Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either.
How could it?
Why are you asking me this question?
Because you claimed, right there in black and white, that it doesn't... implying it should or could.

Decoherence is not an interpretation of QM, it's merely an observation; a brute fact, if you will. All interpretations solve the measurement problem, but they solve it different conceptual ways. There is, so far, no means of selecting among interpretations of QM (at least the valid ones). It may be a lemma of physics (like the wave/particle duality) that there can be no such means.
Why are you telling me this? Where did I say that decoherence was an interpretation of qm?
Where you claimed decoherence should solve the measurement problem. Only an interpretation of QM can do that.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2014
I get that in QM it is all about the final measurements and not the unseen action. But supposing the possible paths were manipulated in different ways, would you get different doppler shifts?
No, different final phases; for example, if you open the second and third slits in the experiment above, you'll get an interference pattern with stripes where the phases from the three most probable paths (the slits, singly, by a direct path) sometimes constructively and sometimes destructively interfere with each other, whereas if only one slit is open you get no interference because all the other likely alternatives are suppressed by being closed and therefore all photons hitting the same spot (or very near it) have the same phase.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2014
Time is QM emergent.
Interesting. Please expand on this. - DS


A universal wave function 'evolves'. ..before'(?) we discuss 'measurement', 'observation', 'decoherence' and 'collapse'.
QM provides a meaningful platform to discuss the latter four points of any model brought up so far on this thread.

How does the Zeno Quantum Effect dovetail into article and all of the commentary put forth by the astute, ardent and helpful commentary contributors here?
Even more interesting. Glad I asked!
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2014
Btw, decoherence DOES NOT resolve this measurement problem either. - Noumenon

How could it? - Da Schneib

Why are you asking me this question? - Noumenon

Because you claimed, right there in black and white, that it doesn't... implying it should or could. - Da Schneib


How can "does not" imply "should or could"? Is this a joke?

Why are you telling me this? Where did I say that decoherence was an interpretation of qm?

Where you claimed decoherence should solve the measurement problem.


I never claimed that " decoherence should solve the measurement problem",... in fact I claimed the EXACT OPPOSITE. What is wrong with you?

The reason for me stating the exact opposite of what you are claiming of me, is to counter claims made by others that decoherence could solve the measurement problem,... those for which you claimed had "well argued" posts.

I don't believe you even read the comment thread at all or understood it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2014
Forget it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2014
Let's try this: quote the claim that decoherence solves the measurement problem.
smd
5 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2014
Noumenon - have you read the paper I linked to?
http://www.scienc...9190194I
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
Let's try this: quote the claim that decoherence solves the measurement problem.


My very first post responded to that claim and the claim continued again and again. In particular see the last sentence which I quoted in my 1st post. I'm perplexed as to why you'e questioning me on this and not them. Though the word "decoherence" was not used, I don't think they are denying it.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
Noumenon - have you read the paper I linked to?
http://www.scienc...9190194I


I responded to your post above as follows,...

"It is already implied that a wave-function is an interference of probability amplitudes, which is why some states get ruled out, in destructive interference. We're talking about the "collapse of the wave function" upon a measurement. This is not explained by the wave-function leaking into the environment or experimental equipment, as in Decoherence,.... as there is NO collapsing wave-function in decoherence,... there is no break from deterministic evolution of the state."

IOW interference of probability amplitudes does not imply what is known as decoherence,... if this answer is inadequate or I missed your point I will look again.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe essentially at the speed of light and combines with the other wavefunctions until every wavefunction "agrees" what actually happened. - Eikka


Yes correct, that is called decoherence. However the reason why it does not resolve the measurement problem and why a conscious observer is fundamentally different than just quantum systems interacting, is that a) the wave-function as a superposition of all possible states is not itself observable, b) decoherence implies Loss of quantum behaviour , evolving to the appearance of classical intuitive behaviour even though we know everything is quantum. - Noumenon


@Da Schnieb,
I repost the above exchange. The context is the difference between "conscious observer" and "interaction" in an experiment. Does it appear that Eikka is refering to decoherence here to you,.... or did I misread it entirely? He did not correct me if so.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe well as entanglement death - smd


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function representing the system and the indeterministic state reduction. This ONLY occurs during a measurement/observation. - Noumenon


@Da Schnieb
I reposted the above exchange.

Does this sound like it was implied that decoherence causes wavefunction collapse to you? (3) could not have referred to probability amplitude interference. Did I misread this also?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2014
Let's try this: quote the claim that decoherence solves the measurement problem.


My very first post responded to that claim and the claim continued again and again.
So there isn't one.

Thought so.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2014
Decoherence is merely the idea that contact (direct or indirect, such as by forces due to charges of subatomic particles) causes coherent particles (i.e. particles that are in a superposition, whether they are entangled or not) to de-cohere, that is, their wavefunction takes on a real value as opposed to the superposition of values it had before. This contact can be environmental, or purposeful in the case of a measurement, or incidental in the case of interference. This is not "decoherence solving the measurement problem;" in fact, decoherence is *causing* the measurement problem.

Solutions to the measurement problem are equal to interpretations of QM. Decoherence is merely a physical effect, and an obvious one at that, not an interpretation of QM. Each interpretation (or class of them) has its own way of solving the measurement problem. There is no way to distinguish among interpretations that we have found so far.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2014
Rating them 1s when you don't have a response because you lied is...

Typical. Thanks for confirming I'm right.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2014
Oh, and BTW decoherence is interpretation-independent; it is compatible with most if not all interpretations, including Cramer's TI, classical Copenhagen, Everett's MW, Bohm, my favorite which is Consistent Histories, and even the odd ones like Many Minds and Quantum Logic.

Decoherence is not an interpretation and does not suggest a solution to the measurement problem. Only an interpretation of QM can do that.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
You received ones, because you troll rated me, claimed that I "lied" and attributed statements to me that I never stated; in fact the polar opposite, interjectd debates that never existed, and have been ridiculously dishonest, ... have not read the posts in context. Did not smd not imply wavefunction collapse due to decoherence?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2014
You *did* lie; you said someone claimed that decoherence solves the measurement problem, and when challenged to provide evidence you tried to change the subject.

And I got 1s from you because you're chickensxxt.

Period.

Now knock it off.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2014
And BTW, telling you you're wrong and downrating your posts because of it is not "trolling."

On Earth.

Get over yourself.
NOM
4 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2014
That's not likely. Noumenon's hobby is uprating himself after someone else gives him a 1.
smd
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2014
Did not smd not imply wavefunction collapse due to decoherence?

No, Noumenon, I did not. I wrote that "interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death." (You remember - it was the third point in a list I posted where you - as I pointed out at the time - erroneously imputed sequential dependence.)

In that same post you wrote "interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse." Oops: interference can cause decoherence - but interference is NOT decoherence.

Moreover, I twice posted a link to a paper confirming that statement. Its abstract concludes:
"This novel behavior illustrates the interference of probability amplitudes and the collapse of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics."

Therefore, there are three alternatives: you didn't read the paper; read it but didn't understand it; or understood it but didn't comment because it proved you incorrect. None are respectable choices.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
Gee, *somebody* didn't read the thread, but it sure looks like *I* did.

Say "d'oh," Noumenon.

And *now* who lied?
Spaced out Engineer
5 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2014
So I have to ask about the non-classical paths. Are these the limiting factor on modeling QM and/or is their contribution significant to the noise? Can non-classical paths merely converge to the finite but in reality represent some lower level illusuary slit? Is this more or less absurd than the many worlds and/or many minds interpretation? The preservation of unitarity both concerns but interests me. Is unitarity only meaningful with the context of a locality which can be specified specific enough?

Could it be a false dicotomy to assume QM has a function where as in truth it is at its basis a spectrum of variable distributions of an innumerable combination of signal and noise without an actual determinate ratio.

We can continually play up the continous aspect of this down selection of the infinite, but surely even if this is the case why cannot math grant us the mathematical structure. Some claim hidden variables, but maybe it's just epiphenomenal when handling the infinite.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
Did not smd not imply wavefunction collapse due to decoherence?


No, Noumenon, I did not. I wrote that "interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death."


No? It sure sounds like it to me,....

(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe ..... - smd


I already pointed out the distinction of interference of probability amplitudes and decoherence several times above. Interference of probability amplitudes does not "collapse the wave-function" either,.... as I said, based on border conditions, it quantifies the possible (finite) observable states of the system. I did not read your link, but think you are reading to far into the particular quote. ....
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
That's not likely. Noumenon's hobby is uprating himself after someone else gives him a 1.


I indeed countered your ratings, and will continue to do so, because you have proven yourself to be a corrupt troll rater. There are others, like Uncle_Ira. You follow me around and rate everyone of my posts a 1, irrespective of content or you own capacity to understand them. I have never made a "2" quality post? I get suspicious when trolls rate every post a 1, so they get it back.

Unfortunately when dealing with dishonest and immature posters, more interested in a Jerry-Springer pissing contests, you get clowns deliberately talking past each other, calling another a lier, attributing statements that were never made, and deliberately skipping over others posts, not answering question, etc. These threads degenerate quickly.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
The point of me entering this thread was, as is clear from my exchange with Eikka and others, was to point out that an Observer does not have a quantum description of himself, the environment, and his equipment in actually conducting an experiment,... there is this distinction between a conscious observer and simply a quantum interaction in measurement. IOW saying that the conscious observer is just another complicated quantum system himself, provides only a heuristic explanation.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
"It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem. It is shown here however that in the cases in which a sentient being is explicitly assumed to take cognizance of the outcome the reasons we have for judging this way are not totally consistent, so that the question has to be considered anew......" - Bernard d'Espagnat.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014

"It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem....... [this point is in disagreement with claims made by DaSchnieb above that my claim to the contrary was not warranted above or even in principal]..... This assertion however is far from being endorsed by all physicists, and the reason is that recognition of the universality of the said interaction is only one of the ingredients in the solution.........." - B. d'Espagnat from above links.

smd
5 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
Your partial d'Espagnat quote is interesting but speculative and therefore tangential in that it is taken from the abstract in one of his philosophical papers on consciousness. Moreover, the quote continues that "It is pointed out that the way the Broglie-Bohm model solves the riddle suggests a possible clue, consisting in assuming that even very simple systems may have some sort of a protoconsciousness, but that their 'internal states of consciousness' are not predictive. It is, next, easily shown that if we imagine the systems get larger, in virtue of decoherence their internal states of consciousness progressively gain in predictive value...." This suggests that he is a biocentrist - a scientist who holds that quantum theory proves consciousness transcends death. In other words, a secular religion, as indicated by his 'hypercosmic God' concept.

So, Noumenon - are you primarily a quantum physicist or philosopher? Just curious.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
You received ones, because you troll rated me
@noumenon
hold on here... you are starting to sound just like realitycheck and his paradoid conspiracy crap-o-la... a one-star vote means that he doesn't agree with what you said, or that he thinks you are wrong
that is it

if you did not lie, you should have proved it with links/posts/quotes/etc
there are no governing rules about how to rate (much to the chagrin of rc) so voting is all a matter of personal preference

But to admit that you voted not on content but because you are pissy about him being in disagreement really can be considered trolling (trolling- trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness. urbandictionary.com)

So what about the people who come after the argument, read and agree with DaSchneib and not you? are they trolling too, in your opinion? or just hangers on?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
I indeed countered your ratings, and will continue to do so, because you have proven yourself to be a corrupt troll rater
@Nou
Wait a minute... your argument to someone you are claiming to be a troll is to admit to having a bunch of sock puppets that skew the ratings in your favor? (Which is considered trolling and very wrong almost everywhere including crackpot sites... even zephirs site doesn't like sock-puppets!)
like Uncle_Ira
Uncle Ira doesn't follow you around so much as likes a lot of the same type articles (unless you have a serious quote of him stating he follows you around to troll you)
He just doesn't like you and thinks you push nonsense (like philosophy over science)... and then rates accordingly
HOW is that WRONG?
isn't that pretty much what YOU do?
that is what you admit to doing above!
and you let your anger overwhelm you to ignore content because someone called you a liar and you DID NOT prove it wrong!

Pot/Kettle here, Nou

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
Your partial d'Espagnat quote is interesting but speculative and therefore tangential in that it is taken from the abstract in one of his philosophical papers on consciousness. [......]...


Your efforts in making him out to be a quack are transparent. All that effort could have been invested instead in understanding him, several orders of magnitude more interesting.

It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics. It mentions consciousness for the same reason that I mentioned epistemology, for the same reason I drew a distinction between a conscious observer and his quantum description, and Positivism as opposed to Realism in QM.

d'Espagnat is a well known physicist and has written extensively on the conceptual foundations of qm. I believe I provided a few links to one of his books,.... in none of these was there mention of religion. The "hypercosmic God" notion is probably similar to "Noumenon" of Immanuel Kant. NO religious connotations implied.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is -Bernard d'Espagnat.
It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem -B. d'Espagnat
@Nou
another point I would like to make about your rant
you quote ONE person twice and think that this actually is evidence that something is generally agreed upon or claimed?
That is like saying that Al Gore speaks for the AGW scientists
It is patently false and considered a really bad judgement call unless you have a means of proving the veracity of the claims. for instance: when scientists say "97% of scientists agree on AGW" they also provided a link like this: http://iopscience.../article
or even this one:
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

then they can say that there is clear evidence or reason for the claim
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
,... the point of quoting that particular paper is contained in the first sentence, smd.

@Stumpy, I've been a poster at Phys.Org for 7 years. NOM is a corrupt rating troll out of many that I have dealt with in like fashion. His ratings of me are entirely invalid. If I had my way, the comment ratings would be disabled, and posters would be forced to make counter arguments instead.

It is patently false and considered a really bad judgement call unless you have a means of proving the veracity of the claims. for instance: when scientists say "97% of scientists agree


Science does not work by democracy vote nor gang warfare. His claim is correct. It is now your job to refute that statement.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is -Bernard d'Espagnat.
It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem -B. d'Espagnat

@Nou
another point I would like to make about your rant
you quote ONE person twice and think that this actually is evidence that something is generally agreed upon or claimed?


According to Bernard d'Espagnat it is true. This is a man well respected who has been deeply involved in qm since he was a student of DeBroglie.

That is all I need, to reject the notion that it is superfluous or logically unnecessary to say "decoherence does not solve the measurement problem", as claimed by DaSchnieb.

Now if you think it is reasonable and rational to suppose that d'Espagnat could possibly be mistaken on this or is lying, then it is up to YOU to "prove" it, as it is YOUR counter claim.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Science does not work by democracy vote nor gang warfare
@Noum
never said it did
but that quote only showed where the investigation of the evidence proved that 97% of the scientists working on the problem all agreed that it was a problem and that man had affected the situation.
That is the science. not the quote. nor the viewpoint that most denier's tend to take (about science not working on democracy)
If I had my way, the comment ratings would be disabled, and posters would be forced to make counter arguments instead
wasn't that what DaSchneib was doing?
wouldn't that mean that your argument is just hypocrisy?
because that is what it appears, given that you simply did the same thing that you are condemning... after all, you also admitted down-voting for being angry, didn't you?

lead by example
smd
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Your partial d'Espagnat quote is interesting but speculative and therefore tangential in that it is taken from the abstract in one of his philosophical papers on consciousness. [......]...Your efforts in making him out to be a quack are transparent. All that effort could have been invested instead in understanding him, several orders of magnitude more interesting.


You really are quite paranoid. I simply assumed that most readers of this thread know that he is a renowned QM physicist who focused largely on experimental tests of Bell's theorem.

It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics.


Hmm...the title is "Consciousness and the Wigner's Friend Problem" and discusses quantum consciousness.

The "hypercosmic God" notion is probably similar to "Noumenon" of Immanuel Kant. NO religious connotations implied


Probably? So you don't know. FYI, he received the 2009 Templeton prize (dedicated to reconciling science and religion) for this.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
that quote only showed where the investigation of the evidence proved that 97% of the scientists working on the problem all agreed that it was a problem and that man had affected the situation.


The point is not how many think 'decoherence could solve the measurement problem', but rather, that enough do according to a well respected physicist, ...... that the counter argument is not redundant nor logically superfluous.

d'Espagnat even says it is far from being believed by all.....


"It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem....... [this point is in disagreement with claims made by DaSchnieb above that my claim to the contrary was not warranted above or even in principal]..... This assertion however is FAR FROM BEING ENDORSED BY ALL PHYSICISTS, and the reason is that recognition of the universality of the said interaction is only one of the ingredients in the solution......" - B. d'Espagnat from above links.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics.


Hmm...the title is "Consciousness and the Wigner's Friend Problem" and discusses quantum consciousness.

Yes of course.

The "hypercosmic God" notion is probably similar to "Noumenon" of Immanuel Kant. NO religious connotations implied


Probably? So you don't know.


Yes that is correct, I don't know. I have never heard that phrase until you posted it, despite having read some of his books on qm. Being a positivist, as opposed to a realist, it is logically necessary to find justification for objective reality. Kant did this with Noumenon,... perhaps d'Espagnat is doing like wise with "hypercosmic god" notion and you are conflating this with religion. Honestly I don't know at this moment. How is it relevant here? Did he mention this in the paper I linked? The paper at arXive summarizes it's objective which is of qm.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
"It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem."
"Generally agreed" by whom? Let's see who "generally agrees." Got anyone else?

On edit: Apparently a small group of physicists led by Heinz-Deter Zeh thinks decoherence solves the measurement problem, but even some of them, for example Maximilian Schlosshauer, are thinking now that it doesn't. So it's definitely not "generally agreed" at all.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
You should have read the Wikipedia article on the measurement problem, Noum. It's very well-sourced.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
BTW I don't downrate to 1 just because I disagree; if the argument is well-presented, I give at least a 3. But if I see someone saying things that just aren't true, like claiming someone said something but not being able to quote it, or using the old "science is not a democracy" argument that all the deniers use, then I start giving ones out. It's dishonest.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
"It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem."
"Generally agreed" by whom? Let's see who "generally agrees." Got anyone else?

On edit: Apparently a small group of physicists led by Heinz-Deter Zeh thinks decoherence solves the measurement problem, but even some of them, for example Maximilian Schlosshauer, are thinking now that it doesn't. So it's definitely not "generally agreed" at all.


It is quit ubiquitous in fact among even professional physicist, and so likely even more so among amateurs, and further it is VERY unreasonable to suppose that d'Espagnat is lying or has not conversed with enough colleagues on the subject to justify his assessment.

Roland Omnes is another very well known physicist,... not that I feel at all the burden of proof here.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Sorry, I don't believe "ubiquitous" and you haven't shown it so far.

If you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Don't try to put it off on d'Espagnat, either, he's part of the evidence you presented (which is insufficient).
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics.


Hmm...the title is "Consciousness and the Wigner's Friend Problem" and discusses quantum consciousness.


I do not see any mention of "quantum consciousness" in that paper. Please provide a direct quote.

You really are quite paranoid. I simply assumed that most readers of this thread know that he is a renowned QM physicist who focused largely on experimental tests of Bell's theorem.


Thank you for mentioning that fact. It 1) makes it even more reasonable to be suspicious as to why one would mention religion and "hypercosmic god" in this thread, still left unanswered, and 2) makes it even less rational to suppose that d'Espagnat is lying or is wrong wrt his quoted assessment of his colleagues.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Omnes says, in the paper you linked,

"There were nevertheless several such advances, although they shed no light on collapse. One may mention for instance decoherence..."

So actually he doesn't believe it's an interpretation of QM or solves the measurement problem either.

Sorry, no, this is not evidence that supports your claim.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
Sorry, I don't believe "ubiquitous" and you haven't shown it so far.

If you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Don't try to put it off on d'Espagnat, either, he's part of the evidence you presented (which is insufficient).


The thread has been long and you have been busy with insults, so I forgive you for forgetting,... but it was YOU who questioned me on the matter. I have provided two very well known professional physicists, and you yourself have discovered yet another. This is all I need (not that I could not find more), to justify the appropriateness of my original remark to non-professionals. Not that I suppose for one moment that had I provided a hundred more examples, that you could muster enough integrity to admit that you are wrong.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
Omnes says, in the paper you linked,

"There were nevertheless several such advances, although they shed no light on collapse. One may mention for instance decoherence..."

So actually he doesn't believe it's an interpretation of QM or solves the measurement problem either.

Sorry, no, this is not evidence that supports your claim.


Did you read the abstract. The point which refutes you is that he regards the question as valid. In any case I may have provided the wrong link. It was mentioned at physicsforums that his text makes the claim and provides page numbers. I can't recheck it now. But it does not matter.

You think that d'Espagnat is lying or do you think he is just factually wrong? I would believe him, as well as my own assessment, over an internet insulter and troll rater.

I am unable to continue this thread further as it is pointless.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Actually I haven't used any insults at all. You lied again.

Not only that but your claim was that someone claimed decoherence solves the measurement problem; mine is that in fact, decoherence isn't an attempt to solve the measurement problem, and furthermore that it's not theoretical but an experimentally proven fact, which Omnes also says in that same paper (and even right after the quote I excerpted above, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find).

So now you're trying to change your claim without admitting it. This logical fallacy is called "moving the goalposts," and is detailed here: https://yourlogic...pleading

Using logically fallacious arguments is trolling.
smd
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
On d'Espagnat's hypercosmic God (a hidden yet ultimate reality beyond time, space, matter, and energy which he sometimes calls a Being or Independent Reality): "There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments....Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God...."

As I said, a secular - or rather secularized - religion-like belief system: To assert that something beyond our ken at the present time will always remain so, and to then invoke an unknowable a transcendental being or reality to account for that unknowable realm is, like it or not, the cognitive foundation of spiritual belief and religious faith.

Belief is not knowledge, even though they can viscerally feel the same.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Omnes says, in the paper you linked, "There were nevertheless several such advances, although they shed no light on collapse. One may mention for instance decoherence..."

So actually he doesn't believe it's an interpretation of QM or solves the measurement problem either.

Sorry, no, this is not evidence that supports your claim.
Did you read the abstract.
Necessarily since I found the above quote which is after the abstract, duh.

The point which refutes you is that he regards the question as valid.
What question? The one you're trying to move the goalposts to?

The original question is whether the physics community at large believes decoherence is either a) a theory or a brute fact, b) whether it is an attempt to explain or solve the measurement problem, and c) whether anyone here claimed it is an attempt to explain or solve the measurement problem. Whether Omnes is ingenious enough to attempt to do so is immaterial to these questions.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
In any case I may have provided the wrong link. It was mentioned at physicsforums that his text makes the claim and provides page numbers. I can't recheck it now. But it does not matter.
Actually it matters very much. Here you are making another claim, and failing to provide evidence to support it. Lying again. That's three times in a row, Noum.

You think that d'Espagnat is lying or do you think he is just factually wrong?
I think he's exaggerating and you're pretending his off-hand statement is a fact without providing any evidence and desperately trying to justify not doing so. Just like you did when you claimed someone said decoherence is an attempt to explain or solve the measurement problem, and just like you did with Omnes, and just like you did when you claimed Omnes showed that it is such an attempt, when in fact he himself is doing so in a speculative theoretical paper. And just like when you implied decoherence is "just a theory."
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Decoherence is a brute fact, supported by experimental results, not a theory, and not an attempt to explain the measurement problem. It was predicted based upon the MW/Everett interpretation, but turns out to work with most if not all interpretations; also, because it's a fact, showing that an interpretation doesn't accommodate it is showing that interpretation denies facts, and is therefore eliminated as a viable interpretation of QM.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
As I said, a secular - or rather secularized - religion-like belief system: To assert that something beyond our ken at the present time will always remain so, and to then invoke an unknowable a transcendental being or reality to account for that unknowable realm is, like it or not, the cognitive foundation of spiritual belief and religious faith.
Indeed. It's also a pair of logical fallacies, specifically the Appeal to Tradition http://www.nizkor...ion.html by claiming that information beyond our current abilities to obtain it will always remain so, and the Appeal to Ignorance (a form of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof away from the claimant: http://www.nizkor...of.html) by that same argument, and furthermore the Appeal to Authority inherent in inventing a super magic sky daddy to explain what we don't know.
smd
5 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
As I said, a secular - or rather secularized - religion-like belief system: To assert that something beyond our ken at the present time will always remain so, and to then invoke an unknowable a transcendental being or reality to account for that unknowable realm is, like it or not, the cognitive foundation of spiritual belief and religious faith.
Indeed. It's also a pair of logical fallacies, specifically the Appeal to Tradition http://www.nizkor...ion.html by that same argument, and furthermore the Appeal to Authority inherent in inventing a super magic sky daddy to explain what we don't know.


Exactly. Thank you for adding these points.

I'll add one more: religiosity is by no means limited to religion: it applies to any cognitive state in which inflexible adherence to and defense of axiomatic beliefs take precedence over knowledge, reasoning and imagination.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
In other words, when beliefs deny reality. Yes, we agree on this, smd. This is one of the foundations of my personal philosophy: what you and I sense is real and is indicative of real events in the real world happening to us, and what we deduce from what we sense is as well.

The others are, you and I are real and our interactions are equally real, what you and I remember in the past are real events that really happened to us, and you are as real as I am. These are axiomatic. I defend them rigorously, but not viciously; if someone can demonstrate that they are incorrect, then I am open to their evidence, but skeptical of it.

And your definition of religiosity also applies to conspiracy theories. ;)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
@noumenon
hold on here... you are starting to sound just like realitycheck and his paradoid conspiracy crap-o-la...

CapS, can't you stop your bait/troll allusions to/about me for even one day? Shut yer trap, idiot hypocrite.

In any case, your encouragement, approval of Uncle Ira's and others of your 'daisy-chain-gang-of-hypocritical stupids' BOT-BLOCK-downvoting from a 'list' irrespective of posted content, is NOT ACCEPTABLE ANYWHERE where scientific method rules of proper science discourse apply. So how can you stand there and castigate others for eventually adopting the SAME strategy to counter your own hypocritical sock-bot-troll gang tactics which skew the ratings pages?

You utter idiot, hypocrite. Can't you see you/your gang are the ones who BROUGHT that downvoting-sock practice to the science sites! But now you whinge, rail and report' Noum for adopting YOUR tactics in self defense? Unbelievable! Shame on you, your wilful insensibility and hypocrisy. Quit it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
Superposition? Double-slit experiment? Paradox? Feynman path integral approach?
smd
5 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
In other words, when beliefs deny reality. Yes, we agree on this, smd. This is one of the foundations of my personal philosophy: what you and I sense is real and is indicative of real events in the real world happening to us, and what we deduce from what we sense is as well.

The others are, you and I are real and our interactions are equally real, what you and I remember in the past are real events that really happened to us, and you are as real as I am. These are axiomatic. I defend them rigorously, but not viciously; if someone can demonstrate that they are incorrect, then I am open to their evidence, but skeptical of it.

And your definition of religiosity also applies to conspiracy theories. ;)


Completely agreed, Da Schneib
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2014
CapS, can't you stop your
TL:DR
BAIT/TROLL post
I never addressed or posted to you
BUTT OUT
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
Poor CapS.
TL:DR
BAIT/TROLL post
I never addressed or posted to you
BUTT OUT
Have you no sense enough when to keep your mouth shut and leave well alone and stop digging, CapS? You said to Noumenon....
@noumenon
hold on here... you are starting to sound just like realitycheck and his paradoid conspiracy crap-o-la...
...which was obvious and intentionally disparaging me while being the hypocrite to Noumenon, accusing him of using the SAME tactics (in his own defense) which you and your gang have brought into the forum and made an 'art form of insensibilty' of!

So it's a bit rich for you to claim that it wasn't YOU that GRATUITOUSLY invoked me disparagingly while being your usual hypocritical TROLL to others as well!

What do you take the wider readership here as, CapS? They are NOT fools like you and your gang, you know. They can spot and smell your hypocrisy and trolling nitwittery a mile off by now.

Just stop digging, bigmouth hypocritical nitwit, then all will be ok
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2014
You said to Noumenon....
@rc
yep
To NOU... not you. and that is perfectly legitimate comment given that there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting the conclusions posted in various threads all over PO
in fact, even here with this little comment
like you and your gang
That infers that I am part of a conspiracy against you, when there is empirical evidence that i am member of any gang
the only evidence you might come up with is that i am friends with a few people and none of us like you because you lie, bait and troll the threads
Therefore, whenever i see your posts and there is no science
i will downvote and report the post
this one i am reporting because you were not part of the convo- you are attempting to force others (me) into an opinion that they have not chosen for themselves

I will say whatever I wish against you as I can provide your own posts for proof
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

good night, TROLL
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
CapS, really, you must stop engaging in your double-speak rationalizations for denying your own faults in this matter. It is plain to see that your allusions and disparagements were directed at me via your 'conversation with your fellow mindless trolls. That 'device' does not in any way 'hide' your troll and bait to/about me. So please stop trying your juvenile level 'i'm innocent troll' schtick and give your insensible blabbermouth a rest. It's becoming too creepy stupid for words or excuses, mate. Really. And I have lately and often provided your OWN posts as proof that you are a hypocritical troll of no value to science or humanity discourse. But you keep insensibly digging yourself deeper! Stop digging yourself ever deeper, CapS.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
You received ones, because you troll rated me - Noumenon responding to the NOM troll


@noumenon
hold on here... you are starting to sound just like realitycheck... - Stumpy


so, likewise,.....

I never addressed or posted to you
BUTT OUT

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics. - Noumenon


Hmm...the title is Consciousness and the Wigner's Friend Problem and discusses quantum consciousness. -SMD


I do not see any mention of "quantum consciousness" in that paper. Please provide a direct quote. - Noumenon


@SMD, I'm still waiting for you to provide a direct quote from that paper showing that it is one on "quantum consciousness".

So, by your own insulting logic,....

"there are three alternatives: you didn't read the paper; read it but didn't understand it; or understood it but didn't comment because it proved you incorrect. None are respectable choices. - smd"

I don't know that d'Espagnat every developed such an idea, ...ala Penrose. Of course the mention of consciousness,...a conscious observer, is entirely appropriate given the context.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Actually I haven't used any insults at all. You lied again. - DaSchnieb


Yet you just did again, saying that I am "lying" repeatedly,... deliberately ignoring all the other possibilities wrt me, and including your own possible faulty reasoning or misapprehension,... "duh".

Not only that but your claim was that someone claimed decoherence solves the measurement problem;


Actually not. The initial statement of mine that YOU took exception to was "Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either." The phrase "By The Way (btw) clearly indicates it was an aside, a remark not intended as one directly related to the main post which was responded to by me.

However, subsequently I did indeed claim that, and provided one of the quotes in question, which lead me to think that. I will repost it yet again having not received an answer. Perhaps, you, DeSchnieb can explain why I misread it as such, and whether it was unreasonable to have do so (?)
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Did not smd not IMPLY wavefunction collapse due to decoherence? - Noumeon


No, Noumenon, I did not. I wrote that interference results in superposition collapse - smd[...]


No? It sure sounds like it to me, (- Noumenon)...

(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition COLLAPSE as The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE .... - smd


I already pointed out the distinction of interference of probability amplitudes and [environmental] decoherence several times above. Interference of probability amplitudes does not "collapse the wave-function" either.... - Noumenon


I am quit suspicious that you attacked me in this thread, despite our agreeing on my factual "btw" statement, while also ignoring blatantly questionable statements made by others.
smd
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
I am quit suspicious that you attacked me in this thread, despite our agreeing on my factual "btw" statement, while also ignoring blatantly questionable statements made by others.

I did nothing of the sort (and you meant "quite," not "quit").

If you actually experience disagreement as an attack, then - as I mentioned earlier - your appear paranoid, making reasonable conversation with you impossible.

You also have demonstrated to all on this thread (as has been pointed out) that your accuse others of during what you yourself are actually doing. This is either intentional and therefore cynical, or you are completely unaware of your own thinking process. Either way, and once again, such behavior makes reasonable conversation impossible.

Respond as you will. I've learned the unfortunate lesson in this thread that there are participants, including yourself, who are here for reasons other than having a substantive discussion of the article.

Enough.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
mine is that in fact, decoherence isn't an attempt to solve the measurement problem - DaSchnieb


Yes, we agree on this. There was zero disagreement on this point. YOU objected to ME stating THAT very point to others, ....apparently on the grounds that it would be superfluous or logically unnecessary to do so. THIS is where we disagree and where the evidence proves you wrong,...

The point wrt Omnes or anyone else for that matter, was not what they concluded, but that they regarded the question one sufficiently important to refute,.... as I Noumenon also felt justified in mentioning it as well.

"It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem" - d'Espagnat

It is not reasonable and in fact desperate, to suppose that d'Espagnat is exaggerating or has not conversed with enough colleagues on the subject to justify his assessment.

.....
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
"Environment-induced decoherence and superselection have been a subject of intensive research over the past two decades, yet their implications for the foundational problems of quantum mechanics, most notably the quantum measurement problem, have remained a matter of great controversy." - Maximilian Schlosshauer

"It has lately become fashionable to claim that decoherence has solved the quantum measurement problem by eliminating the necessity for Von Neumann's wave function collapse postulate." - Stephen Adler

and yet another,... Art Hobson

,... and in fact anyone can easily search physicsforums or arxiv.org for "decoherence measurement problem" and find the ubiquitousness of the question,.... and in books and other references where Decoherence is described it is invariably stated as well,... so it was not unreasonable for me to do so here.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
I am quit suspicious that you attacked me in this thread, despite our agreeing on my factual "btw" statement, while also ignoring blatantly questionable statements made by others.


I did nothing of the sort (and you meant "quite," not "quit").


I was still responding to DaSchnieb, I just used your quote. I didn't make this clear.

You also have demonstrated to all on this thread (as has been pointed out) that your accuse others of during what you yourself are actually doing.


It is fascinating that you don't see DaSchnieb as doing so. Perhaps we are both talking past each other.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
On d'Espagnat's hypercosmic God (a hidden yet ultimate reality beyond time, space, matter, and energy which he sometimes calls a Being or Independent Reality): "There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly.


Just as I suspected, it is similar to Kant's 'Noumenon' concept. Again the above referenced book is not ABOUT the metaphysical realm,... but instead is about the limits of valid scientific enquiry. It is a Positivists justification of an Objective world, and an argument against a Realist interpretation of QM (who propose such things a many worlds, etc).

Kant himself had already resoundingly made this point in 'A Critique of Pure Reason' wrt Noumenon, saying "metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge". It was a epistemological statement, one about the validity of knowledge,... statements that even an atheist (like me) could make following the same reasoning.....
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
....

Abraham Pais, Nuclear Physicist, and well known biographer, stated that Niels Bohr was the natural successor to Immanuel Kant,... on account of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. This was again not a religious or belief system statement, but one based in QM interpretations with consideration of epistemology.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
"In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments....Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God...."

As I said, a secular - or rather secularized - religion-like belief system:


Any further speculations by d'Espagnat than that described in my previous post, and the book and paper I linked to, can have relevance to this thread only to one who has completely misapprehended the context, or has instead sought to discredit a legitimate source and renowned physicist.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
To assert that something beyond our ken at the present time will always remain so, and to then invoke an unknowable a transcendental being or reality to account for that unknowable realm is, like it or not, the cognitive foundation of spiritual belief and religious faith.


False. The exact opposite.

It is merely to ascertain an understanding of the limits and validity of scientific knowledge.

That an objective world exist is one based on experience. That scientific enquiry can obtain knowledge of Reality that is independent of mind, is scientifically and logically unfounded (d'Espagnat's book linked to above, which is about qm, explains why). The realm of scientific enquiry is "phenomenal reality" which necessarily contains a component that is mind dependent.

In fact, Scientific Positivism rejects the "spiritual belief" implied by the Realist interpretation.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly.


d'Espagnat's book linked to above justifies this statement on scientific interpretational grounds,,,, not on any secular religious grounds,... in fact it contains an argument against a scientifically unfounded belief system implicit in the Realist position.

Again why bother to mention "hypercosmic god" here, and worse why misrepresent it's relevancy to science?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
In any case I may have provided the wrong link. It was mentioned at physicsforums that his text makes the claim and provides page numbers. I can't recheck it now. But it does not matter.

Actually it matters very much. Here you are making another claim, and failing to provide evidence to support it. Lying again.


No, you insulting twit,.. it just means that it does not matter wrt the "btw" statement being appropriate to make here.

I should not have relied on another's comment from physicsforums about Omnes book with myself having read and verified it in the book (which may still be correct).

However this does not mean that I was lying. Here is the comment, 2nd from top.

Why do I feel like I must get my lawyer involved when talking to you? My libertarian or anti-liberal posts in other threads should have no bearing in this one.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
I think [d'Espagnat is] exaggerating and you're pretending his off-hand statement is a fact without providing any evidence and desperately trying to justify not doing so. [...] just like when you implied decoherence is "just a theory."


I have never implied that decoherence is "just a theory". Did you just invent that lie on the spot?

[EDIT ABOVE] "I should not have relied on another's comment from physicsforums about Omnes book [without] myself having read and verified it in the book"
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
I think [d'Espagnat is] exaggerating and you're pretending his off-hand statement is a fact without providing any evidence and desperately trying to justify not doing so....


I have now provided more statements equivalent to his by well known physicists. You have made it ambiguous as to when they become sufficient to refute you,.... even though logically, even ONE such assessment of the question is sufficient to have done so.

Had I provided 1,000 more like sources, you would still lack the intellectual integrity and maturity to admit to being factually wrong,... wrt the supposed superfluousness or logically non-necessity of making that factual statement in a science news site.

QED

[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
Actually I haven't used any insults at all. You lied again.
Yet you just did again, saying that I am "lying" repeatedly,... deliberately ignoring all the other possibilities wrt me, and including your own possible faulty reasoning or misapprehension,... "duh".
Unfortunately it's obviously a lie. When someone says something that's not true, and then resorts to dishonesty when challenged, we call that "lying." It's not an insult; it's a statement of fact.

Not only that but your claim was that someone claimed decoherence solves the measurement problem;
Actually not. The initial statement of mine that YOU took exception to was "Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either." The phrase "By The Way (btw) clearly indicates it was an aside, a remark not intended as one directly related to the main post which was responded to by me.
So? It's still a lie. Decoherence was never intended to resolve the measurement problem. It's a brute physical fact.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
However, subsequently I did indeed claim that, and provided one of the quotes in question,
Unfortunately your quote only proved that one physicist had attempted to use decoherence to do it, and that that physicist exaggerated in his paper's abstract (or introduction; I'm too lazy to go look which) about it being some sort of consensus among more than a few like-minded physicists. The evidence you provided didn't prove what you claimed it did, and I took it apart piece by piece and showed that.

which lead me to think that. I will repost it yet again having not received an answer.
You received an answer; you just didn't like it.

Perhaps, you, DeSchnieb can explain why I misread it as such, and whether it was unreasonable to have do so (?)
I already have shown it was unreasonable; as for why you misread things that way, I have no idea because I am not a psychologist.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
mine is that in fact, decoherence isn't an attempt to solve the measurement problem
Yes, we agree on this.
No, we don't, and the evidence is your own statement that it doesn't solve it, implying it's supposed to or that someone here tried to use it that way. It's not, and they didn't.

The point wrt Omnes or anyone else for that matter, was not what they concluded, but that they regarded the question one sufficiently important to refute,.... as I Noumenon also felt justified in mentioning it as well.
But that's not what Omnes did. You're lying again.

"It is generally agreed"
By whom?

"that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem" - d'Espagnat
No, it's not. Decoherence is the observation of experiment. It's a brute physical fact, not a solution to the measurement problem.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
It is not reasonable and in fact desperate, to suppose that d'Espagnat is exaggerating or has not conversed with enough colleagues on the subject to justify his assessment
LOL

He made one little exaggeration and you're trying to blow that up into some sort of rigorous statement of fact. It's not and never was. You're lying again, Noum.

And the desperate one is you, trying to inflate this claim.

anyone can easily search physicsforums or arxiv.org for "decoherence measurement problem" and find the ubiquitousness of the question,
Neither is a journal of record.

[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]
LOL

You ARE paranoid.

I'm not NOM.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
"Environment-induced decoherence and superselection have been a subject of intensive research over the past two decades, yet their implications for the foundational problems of quantum mechanics, most notably the quantum measurement problem, have remained a matter of great controversy." - http://arxiv.org/.../0312059
That isn't a statement that decoherence is or ever was an attempt to solve the measurement problem, nor even a statement that it can do so, nor is it a statement that anyone here ever attempted to use it so. You're still lying, Noum.

and in books and other references where Decoherence is described it is invariably stated as well,
I've read a lot of physics books and papers and never seen anyone claim decoherence can, could, or was ever intended to solve the measurement problem. How about you name some of these mysterious books? Just for grins.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
"It has lately become fashionable to claim that decoherence has solved the quantum measurement problem by eliminating the necessity for Von Neumann's wave function collapse postulate." - Stephen Adler
The wavefunction collapse is a feature of one specific interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation. Not only that but there are other modified versions of that interpretation that do not have wavefunction collapse. Furthermore, wavefunction collapse is not the measurement problem. Finally, when I see things like "fashionable" I know that I am reading an offhand comment, not a rigorous statement of fact. Here you are desperately trying to inflate another offhand comment into some sort of rigorous statement of fact. You're lying again, Noum.

and yet another,... Art Hobson
Quote or it never happened. I'm not going to search some paper trying to figure out what you're talking about. Particularly not when the rest of your "evidence" consists of offhand comments that lack rigor.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
Oh, and I suggest you search on the term "liar." You will find I never used it; that would be an insult. I only said, "this is a lie." I occasionally use insults, but only on people who are obviously trolling for a negative response. You, it appears to me, are merely mistaken. You appear to be repeating lies others have told you, and rationalizations of those lies you have made up yourself. You are guilty of nothing more than repeating them, and rationalizing unreasonable statements, and misunderstanding the difference between the formal and the colloquial. Since I am regularly guilty of presenting the formal and the colloquial alongside each other, I guess I can't do any more than point it out; personal criticism is for others to mete out (or not, as they choose). However, I can and do criticize such statements, often by giving them 1 star.

Do you always take things so personally?
dan42day
not rated yet Oct 11, 2014
Well then perhaps the universe is only 6,000 years old in the sense that "someone" opened "the box" about that time and all the waveforms from the last 15 billion years suddenly collapsed into the reality we see. And no, I'm an agnostic with a sense of humor, not a creationist.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
wavefunction collapse is not the measurement problem.


It is the only valid interpretation from an operational point of view (in repeated measurements resulting in same results), so wavefunction collapse is invariably associated with the measurement problem, where ever one cares to look.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
"It has lately become fashionable to claim that decoherence has solved the quantum measurement problem by eliminating the necessity for Von Neumann's wave function collapse postulate." - Stephen Adler

..... when I see things like "fashionable" I know that I am reading an offhand comment, not a rigorous statement of fact.


You are now inventing standards which you require Stephen Adler to submit to? It is an assessment apparently Adler felt justified in making of the physics community. That is the only reason for me posting it.

The fact IS that Stephen Adler says so, Bernard d'espagnat says so, Maximilian Schlosshauer says so, and Art Hobson thinks or thought so (you did not acknowledge clicking on his paper because the title was " Why decoherence solves the measurement problem", more dishonest corruption from you).

....
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
....

The point of contention by you was that my factual statement was superfluous or logically unnecessary to make at this non-rigorous science news site. You have been proven wrong beyond all doubt, 1) I have provided several well known physicists who state unambiguously as their own assessment that at least some claim decoherence can or may lead to a solution of the measurement problem, and then to state otherwise also, .....2) I have provided a link to one who even thinks it does do so..... 3) I have provided a link to the sister web site of this very non-rigorous web site in which I had made the statement you object to, showing that it is indeed entirely appropriate and not logically unnecessary to have done.

[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]

LOL

You ARE paranoid.

I'm not NOM.


I never said you are, ....why are you so paranoid?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
mine is that in fact, decoherence isn't an attempt to solve the measurement problem

Yes, we agree on this.

No, we don't, and the evidence is your own statement that it doesn't solve it, implying it's supposed to or that someone here tried to use it that way.


Only via your corrupt, deliberately obfuscating, a.d.d. logic would "does not" equate to "supposed to, or could". And I have reposted SMD's comment showing that either he implied that himself, or that it was at the very least reasonable for me to think so, which I still do. Here it is yet again,..

"interference results in superposition COLLAPSE as The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE - smd"
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
anyone can easily search physicsforums or arxiv.org for "decoherence measurement problem" and find the ubiquitousness of the question

Neither is a journal of record.


Neither is Phys.org a journal of record, and THIS is where I made the statement you absurdly object to.

I have never said that decoherence was originally put forward as a solution to the measurement problem. That is your colossal lie and obfuscation in this thread. I only implied that some claim that it may lead to or has provided a solution and that saying that "it does not" is sufficiently justified on those grounds,..... I have back this claim up by providing sufficient sources of well known physicist.

You are throwing none sense against the wall to see if it sticks. It is almost as if you are trying to convince those unable to follow the thread but yet still reading it, that you are Right. This would only make you the tallest midget in the room. I let you have that...
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
I have had less frustrating experiences in discussions with the crank johanfprins, ......they were at least about something.
smd
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
And I have reposted SMD's comment showing that either he implied that himself, or that it was at the very least reasonable for me to think so, which I still do. Here it is yet again,..

"interference results in superposition COLLAPSE as The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE - smd"

While I've yet to accuse you of lying, Noumenon, I do so now: I didn't write this - Eikka did.

You've taken something I did write ("interference results in superposition collapse"), add the word "as" and attach what Eikka wrote ("The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe"), hoping that nobody would notice or bother to refute. Moreover, this is the third time you've posted this intentionally deceptive false construction (intentional because you knowingly replied to Eikka's quote separately).

You are a disgrace. Individuals like you abuse the privilege of engaging in an open science forum and should be banned.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Please accept my apology. It was actually NOT intentional. I am not dishonest like that, though it may be in your best interest to claim that.

The first two times I quoted you were accurate, but somehow it got garbled on Oct 8th, and then I copied my own error again.

On Oct 8th, I reposted my response to Eikka in the previous post, containing "The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE",... then in the very next post reposted my response to you, that erroneously contained the SAME sentence, "The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE". As you can see the "The" is capitalized and the entire sentence does not even make grammatical sense. It is garbled.

All I can do is apologize and ask that you accept that it could have been a garbled copy/paste error. After all, it in no way effects the reason for my quoting you multiple times
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
I typically write, edit, and copy/paste several posts at the same time in MS Word before posting them.

Here is the original post where I quoted you correctly on Oct 5.

(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function representing the system and the indeterministic state reduction. This ONLY occurs during a measurement/observation. This is a unresolved problem in QM, except by reference to "many world" like interpretations.


As you can see the original quote is sufficient to have made my point in quoting you.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
@smd, when you erroneously claimed that the paper I linked to "discusses quantum consciousness", I did not call you a liar, nor did I call you a disgrace, nor did I insinuate that you should be banned,... I simply asked that you to clarify by supplying a direct quote from that paper.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
[Corrected the above post for smd]

No, we don't, and the evidence is your own statement that it doesn't solve it, implying it's supposed to or that someone here tried to use it that way.


Only via your corrupt, deliberately obfuscating, a.d.d. logic would "does not" equate to "supposed to, or could". And I have reposted SMD's comment showing that either he implied that himself, or that it was at the very least reasonable for me to think so, which I still do. Here it is yet again,..

["(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death - smd"]

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
Here is the original garbled copy/paste from Oct 8th,...

"(3) interference results in superposition collapse as The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe well as entanglement death"
smd
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
While your apology would normally be welcomed, you continue to intentionally misrepresent what you've posted.

The only way these two statements could have been conflated in your posts is if you copied and pasted each one - from different comments from myself and Eikka, respectively - inserted the connective "as" and posted the false result, attributing it to me.

A "garbled copy/paste error" would not contain "as" between the two pasted statements unless you knowingly inserted it at that precise location - since it appears in neither of the original statements - in an attempt to convince other readers that your case was viable. Since you had to take the above steps to do so, it was intentionally deceptive.

Your tactics are reminiscent of corrupt political rhetoric in which an intentionally untrue statement, when caught, is followed up by an apology and a claim of having "misspoke." It fools no one who is paying attention.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Just another troll. Good bye, troll.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]
LOL
You ARE paranoid
I'm not NOM

I never said you are, ....why are you so paranoid?
@nou
maybe he assumed you were trying to say he was based upon your allusions that Schneib was wrong, an internet troll rater, and your general comments give the insinuation that he is lying
You think that d'Espagnat is lying or do you think he is just factually wrong? I would believe him, as well as my own assessment, over an internet insulter and troll rater.
plus there is the fact that you've already been either overwhelmed by the comments or just regularly confused who you are talking to when you confused smd with Eikka

While I've yet to accuse you of lying, Noumenon, I do so now: I didn't write this - Eikka did
and had to apologize
Please accept my apology. It was actually NOT intentional
but you could not even admit fault
...I did not call you a liar...
make up your mind, philo man
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Just another troll. Good bye, troll.
@Da Schneib
this is the problem with mixing philosophy with science, really
Nou tends to swing more towards philo talk which is usually subjective to the individual and not falsifiable (or argues semantics where it is irrelevant), whereas you are talking science which is supported by empirical data and such

this is one huge reason i feel IMHO there should be a division between philo and science, and that philo's should stick to subjective area's, not science

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
The only way these two statements could have been conflated in your posts is if you copied and pasted each one - from different comments from myself and Eikka, respectively - inserted the connective "as" and posted the false result, attributing it to me.


Nope, your original post contains "as well as", I did not add an "as". I already told you that I had both yours and Eikka's quotes in the same MS Word doc while editing.

Here is proof that it was not intended,... On Oct 9th I reposted that garbled quote in response to YOU. Now why would I intentionally misrepresent YOUR own quote to back to YOU?

Also, I KNEW the entire time that you were following this thread, so why would I misrepresent your post when I had already quoted you twice correctly?

All I can do is ask that you reconsider my apology and explanation. This requires all the more integrity from you because in discrediting me this way, you will benefit, and provide sustenance for Stumpy and Schnieb.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
A "garbled copy/paste error" would not contain "as" between the two pasted statements unless you knowingly inserted it at that precise location - since it appears in neither of the original statements - in an attempt to convince other readers that your case was viable. Since you had to take the above steps to do so, it was intentionally deceptive.


This is factually incorrect.

Here is the garbled quote,....

"(3) interference results in superposition collapse as [The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe] well as entanglement death"

Here is the original quote,....

"(3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death"

As you can clearly see, the erroneous addition between brackets does NOT add anything new from Eikka post to your own. In fact it does not even make grammatical sense. In addition the "The" is capitalized. Correcting the error would not negate my reasons for quoting you.
smd
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Very well. Since my original statement had the secondary phrase beginning "as well as..." the error is conceivable. However, I have some difficulty in seeing how you did not notice the result of your error before posting your comment.

It is also not in your favor that your appear to never have reviewed the research paper - to which I provided a link several times - supporting my assertion that interference can indeed cause superposition collapse, since that was the initial crux of our discussion. Similarity, you made inflexible insertions about material with which you were not familiar, and posted an incorrect link without posting subsequently posting the correct one. This is the behavior of one who wants to win an argument at all costs rather than have a rational discussion.

If your want to be taken seriously in the future (as I want to believe that you do), you should (as well as others who practice them) abandon these counterproductive confrontational practices.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
It is also not in your favor that your appear to never have reviewed the research paper - to which I provided a link several times - supporting my assertion that interference can indeed cause superposition collapse, since that was the initial crux of our discussion.


I responded that I did not read it because I thought you were conflating "interference of probability amplitudes and [environmental] decoherence". You did not respond further.

Instead, in your next series of posts you mentioned "consciousness transcends death", and "secular religion", and, "hypercosmic God", and "quantum consciousness",... none of which were contained in any sources I linked to. I could say that "this is the behavior of one who wants to win an argument at all costs" by discrediting with irrelevancies.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Thank you for at least acknowledging that the error was conceivable.

However, I have some difficulty in seeing how you did not notice the result of your error before posting your comment.


Probably for the same reason that you only noticed it today, four days after the fact,... and since it was your own quote one would think you would have noticed it before me. In fact had you not corrected it today, I would have continued to quote in for months and months completely oblivious.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
provide sustenance for Stumpy and Schnieb
@Nou
nice
i chimed in because you couldn't see what was right in front of you
and you were wrong but wouldn't admit it

You apologized, which was a good thing, but then tried to retract that with excuses, a-la rc and all the other trolls
I was going to give you stars for that, but then i noticed you are doing above what you are trying to scold others for doing...

THIS is the reason philo's and science don't mix
You can see proof above of your comments, along with your mistakes, but that is not important to you, only the star rating/etc is

well, to me only the SCIENCE is important
deal with it
and if you want to scold someone for downrating, start with yourself for being a hypocritical TROLL

After all... what was not factual about that post above, eh? LOL
your hypocrisy knows no bounds

P.S. BTW, your 1star only means that I hit a sore spot and i was right
but you can't see that either
nice

:-)
thanks
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
Similarity, you made inflexible insertions about material with which you were not familiar, and posted an incorrect link without [..] subsequently posting the correct one.


One of the main reasons internet discussions degenerate so quickly is because people make presumptions about another's intentions without it being possible to know.

I posted a link that I presumed would substantiate a comment made by a poster at PhysicsForums wrt Omnes. I already explained this above,...

I should not have relied on another's comment from physicsforums about Omnes book with myself having [not] read and verified it in the book (which may still be correct).

However this does not mean that I was lying. Here is the comment, 2nd from top.


The salient point still remains, the association of decoherence and the measurement problem.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
You apologized, which was a good thing, but then tried to retract that with excuses


I did not attempt to "retract" my multiple apologies. I provided evidence so that smd would not think that I had done it intentionally to deceive.

THIS is the reason philo's and science don't mix


Perhaps if you studied either one or the other, you would realize that they are intertwined. Physicists DO speak philosophically, that is a fact. I am not interested in a pointless Otto style debate on this. Clearly the book that I linked to above "Physics and Philosophy" was written by a physicist.
smd
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Thank you for at least acknowledging that the error was conceivable.

However, I have some difficulty in seeing how you did not notice the result of your error before posting your comment.


Probably for the same reason that you only noticed it today, four days after the fact,... and since it was your own quote one would think you would have noticed it before me. In fact had you not corrected it today, I would have continued to quote in for months and months completely oblivious.


You are unreal. This is not the first time I mentioned it.

Moreover, your point is specious: It's your responsibility as the author of the comment to ensure that your post is accurate and as intended. Period.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
You can see proof above of your comments, along with your mistakes, but that is not important to you, only the star rating/etc is


You give me no reason to suppose that you followed the above discussion.

I am probably the only phys.org member who has repeatably requested that phys.org disable ratings altogether. They are being used as a weapon. NOM is associated with phys.org and 1-rates me no matter what I post. That is a corruption of the system by a phys.org employee.

If I cared about ratings I would only post things that are instantly agreeable given the mentality of phys.org,.... and post "where is the evidence" or 'where is the proof", and "the Koch brothers are evil", over and over to collect my 5's.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
I provided evidence
@Nou
ok
Perhaps if you studied either one or the other
I studied physical science and I am in physics courses now, but preferring the psychology and criminal justice courses
you would realize that they are intertwined
no, they are not, really
Physicists DO speak philosophically, that is a fact
And I have seen Otto quote the bible, but that don't make him a catholic priest now, does it?
This is where we have separate opinions
Is there a benefit to asking questions and contemplating the answers? yes
is there a benefit to analytical contemplation? yes
does that make it a science? no
the fundamental difference is that, as an investigator, I prefer to be able to find answers that are not falsifiable which define something that is not subjective to the individual, which philo-talk can't do

This is where you and I will never agree, as well

a physicist spouting philo- again: just because I can spout poetry doesn't mean I am Shakespeare
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Thank you for at least acknowledging that the error was conceivable.

However, I have some difficulty in seeing how you did not notice the result of your error before posting your comment.


Probably for the same reason that you only noticed it today, four days after the fact,... and since it was your own quote one would think you would have noticed it before me. In fact had you not corrected it today, I would have continued to quote in for months and months completely oblivious.


You are unreal. This is not the first time I mentioned it.

Moreover, your point is specious: It's your responsibility as the author of the comment to ensure that your post is accurate and as intended. Period.


I took responsibility for that error.

I just went through all you previous posts, and don't see where you had discovered that error prior to today.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
they are intertwined
con't
they have been historically, but there was also a historical connection between astronomy and astrology, but you wouldn't say that they are intertwined today, would you?
I sure wouldn't unless specifically discussing the historical facts
You give me no reason to suppose that you followed the above discussion
whatever
you've still given no proof of general agreement that
It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem
I watch QM because i am interested... believe what you want, nou
I am probably the only phys.org member who has repeatably requested that phys.org disable ratings altogether
No... a lot of other trolls have asked for them to be disabled as well
I have found them to be useful in some occasions
Especially when I find a poster i don't know and I look at who is rating and then read those comments to find out why

but you wouldn't understand that with your "know everything" attitude
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
and post "where is the evidence" or 'where is the proof", and "the Koch brothers are evil", over and over to collect my 5's
@Nou cont'd
i came here initially to learn
but then I noticed that there were a snot-load of posters that tended to post those fringe ideas that had no real basis in reality and were violating the laws of physics.
There was a cool buzzword that people gave those ideas called: pseudoscience
I spent a LOT of the first year before I ever made a profile to post reading up on the pseudoscience and learning the wrong stuff... I learned when I started taking more college that they were absolutely wrong

This is why I push for evidence and a foundation with education to combat BS pseudoscience

and I consider it a personal mission to point out pseudoscience to others so that they do NOT make the same mistake

or confuse philo double-talk with actual science

you ignore empirical evidence and science (like AGW)
that is why we don't agree
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
@Stumpy, I don't care to engage in a debate about whether philosophy has relevance to physics. It is too asinine. Do you honestly think you know better than d'Espagnat or the many other physicists who make contributions to the philosophy of physics. What do you think interpretations of QM or GR are? Do you think that I think science progresses by thought alone? How can you deny that the field of 'philosophy of physics' exists as a matter of fact. There are many great writing's on the subject, I suggest instead of denying them, take a look.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
No where have I ever claimed that philosophy in any way replaces physics. That is you fallacious argument.

you've still given no proof of general agreement that

It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem


As I suspected, you did not follow the thread. Had you done so you would have noticed that I did indeed provide several statements by prominent physicists saying just that.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
you ignore empirical evidence and science (like AGW)
that is why we don't agree


Did you just pull that one from your a$$? I do not deny the core science of AGW.

or confuse philo double-talk with actual science


Which is the problem with Uncle_Ira,... that because he at present does not understand something, it should mean that it is not understandable. This is fallacious logic and stems from your own refusal to admit you do not understand.

So I try to convince you in other ways that philosophy has relevance by mentioning physicists who know so. Here is another,... Abraham Pais was a well known nuclear physicist, who stated that N. Bohr was a natural successor to I. Kant, a prominent philosopher. Hmmmm, now why would he say that?

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2014
Do you honestly think you know better than d'Espagnat or the many other physicists who make contributions to the philosophy of physics
@Nou
redirect the argument into an argument from authority?
Do you think that I think science progresses by thought alone?
already answered this one- science is about evidence, philo is about thought
instead of denying them, take a look
why would I read philo when I can read about physics?
No where have I ever claimed that philosophy in any way replaces physics. That is you fallacious argument
This is what Da Schneib calls a LIE. please show me where I say philo replaces physics, thanks
Had you done so you would have noticed
i only saw two. 2 is NOT a consensus or even MANY unless the population of physicists has shrunk considerably since last night.... has it?

Please point out all these "many" scientists to me again? re-post in quote format, if you would
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Did you just pull that one from your a$$?
I pulled it out of your post and made an assumption based upon this comment
and "the Koch brothers are evil", over and over to collect my 5's
BTW- you cannot prove that I ever said the Koch bro's are evil because i never have... that is a cultural thing
I said that they are trying to undermine science
I do not deny the core science of AGW
You give me no reason to suppose that you believe in the core science of AGW
adding a qualifier before AGW means that you disagree with some of it... please feel free to link any of those studies and show a reputable study refuting it
the problem with Uncle_Ira
I am NOT IRA and where did I ever say
that because he at present does not understand something, it should mean that it is not understandable
I have said that if you cannot say it in a manner that a youth could understand then likely you don't understand the subject as well as you think... but that is different
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
I don't care to engage in a debate about whether philosophy has relevance to physics. It is too asinine
you are absolutely right. it is asinine
physics requires proof

and I will not bother discussing it either, because you are making false assumptions anyway
So I try to convince you in other ways that philosophy has relevance by mentioning physicists who know so
And this only shows that YOU are not reading the thread

i said that philo has its benefits, but it is NOT science, nor do i believe it is intertwined with it except historically
i don't agree with you that philo is as important as you make it out to be
it is only a way of creating a set of internal controls to manipulate the observations and try to justify the external world

I use empirical evidence, not philo

nuff said?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
@Stumpy
The issue was never that it was a consensus. Did you just invent that goal post?

The point was that several prominent physicists think that "It has lately become fashionable to claim that decoherence has solved the quantum measurement problem" and "It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem.", etc. Those assessments, by prominent physicists are what refutes DaSchnieb objection to my posting "Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem" as superfluous or logically unnecessary to do here at a science news site.

I have no interest in debating the Relevance of philosophy to science. As I understand, SMD has some interest and background in philosophy to science (?), perhaps you can disagree with him on it.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
you ignore empirical evidence and science (like AGW)
Did you just pull that one from your a$$?

I pulled it out of your post and made an assumption based upon this comment
and "the Koch brothers are evil", over and over to collect my 5's


So had I thought the Koch brothers were evil, this would mean that I agree with AGW? I don't follow your logic here.

I do not deny the core science of AGW

You give me no reason to suppose that you believe in the core science of AGW

So you are claiming I reject the core science of AGW by default?
...adding a qualifier before AGW means that you disagree with some of it... please feel free to link any of those studies and show a reputable study refuting it

Why would I do this when as I already told you I don't reject the core science of AGW? Perhaps I will post again in another thread about AGW, and you can engage me then in context.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
i said that philo has its benefits, but it is NOT science, nor do i believe it is intertwined with it except historically


This stems from your not studying the relationship, not from there not being one. Also, why say philo is not science,... when no one says that it is?

i don't agree with you that philo is as important as you make it out to be


On what grounds? Do know better than d'Espagnat because he wrote an entire book on it, and several other had done so as well.

Perhaps SMD will argue this with you.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
Did you just invent that goal post?
@Nou
read the rest of that line
or even MANY unless the population of physicists has shrunk considerably since last night.... has it?
and the word consensus would imply a general agreement, so when you post
It is generally agreed that
then you can assume there is a consensus, IMHO
this is the semantics that you've been arguing above... and the point Schneib was making

but when challenged on how one person makes a consensus or a majority, you write
Your efforts in making him out to be a quack are transparent
(Oh, no... i didn't read the thread at all, nou... i am just guessing here, right?) so you got two and then still had the audacity to cling to the "generally agreed" quote
this is called "getting caught with your pants down" and now you are refusing to fess up the error (and YES, the burden of proof was upon you, not us, as you made the claims, not us)

to be continued
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
The point was that several prominent ...
cont'd
no, the point was that you created a physicists "generally agreed" out of two freakin physicists
refutes DaSchnieb
Schneib was saying the same thing I am here: 2 people is NOT the same thing as "generally agreed"
I don't follow your logic here
your negative connotation makes me think you are against the science that proves AGW... and that I am strictly posting for ratings
I post for the science
there is a LOT of science proving AGW, none disproving it
I reject the core science of AGW by default?
which is exactly what you've been doing above to myself and others (see also below "Do know better than d'Espagnat because" [sic])
live with it, it was a lesson
learn it and move on
your not studying the relationship
personal conjecture
just because i don't like it doesn't mean i haven't studied it

you are simply arguing in circles now because you don't wish to admit more fault
Ok
fine
Try re-reading
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
and the word consensus would imply a general agreement, so when you post
It is generally agreed that.

then you can assume there is a consensus, IMHO... this is the semantics that you've been arguing above.


That was a quote by d'Espagnat,... who then says "..This assertion [that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem] however is FAR FROM being endorsed by all physicists".

So again, it is not about consensus, nor ever was. I never employed that argument, nor do I need to.

but when challenged on how one person makes a consensus or a majority, you write

Your efforts in making him out to be a quack are transparent


That statement by me had zero relation to any mention of consensus. It had to do with smd's irrelevant posts about "hypercosmic god", "quantum consciousness", and religion.

Get your facts straight. And it would help if you did not parse quotes into pieces before arguing with them.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
CapS. Your comments to Noumenon are infested with your own hypocrisy and insensibility....
... a-la rc and all the other trolls
You just AGAIN gratuitously invoked me in your personality-cult ego-rants to others. So blame yourself for this response.

...but then i noticed you are doing above what you are trying to scold others for doing...
your hypocrisy knows no bounds
Says the proven troll who accuses others being trolls while AGAIN gratuitously trolling baits and misrepresentations about me above.

P.S. BTW, your 1star only means that I hit a sore spot and i was right
but you can't see that either
Says the block-bot-gang 1's downvoting troll who rates based on his personal-political 'list' irrespective of posted content.

CapS, if you can't see yourself as others see you, don't pretend to the high ground. Your continuing hypocrisy and insensibility makes you the last person in any position to 'judge' others. So zip it, soldier! And stop digging!
NOM
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]
Done.

... and now you have lots of hypocritical 5's to stroke yourself with. Wank away.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
Careful when saying that to him, NOM; remember: "people in glass houses" and all that, hey? He may be 'doing it for himself', as you say; but the daisy-chain-wanking-troll-gang you run with does it 'in the round' for each other. Yuk! And then of course, you 'do it in the dark' as well. Why doesn't your rating page...

https://sciencex....ser/NOM/

...show any comments from you at all, not even the one above?

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
Careful when saying that to him, NOM; remember: "people in glass houses" and all that, hey? He may be 'doing it for himself', as you say; but the daisy-chain-wanking-troll-gang you run with does it 'in the round' for each other. Yuk! And then of course, you 'do it in the dark' as well. Why doesn't your rating page...

https://sciencex....ser/NOM/

...show any comments from you at all, not even the one above?



Because he is a dolt who likes to advertise that Phys.Org employs trolls who abuse their own comment rating system.

[Btw, NOM, it is not hypocritical of me to fight back against rating trolls. Your ratings are invalid]
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2014
Get your facts straight
@nou
apparently it is you who can't read
lets take it slow
you quote d'Espagnat, and then claimed
generally agreed
then you could only wuote 2 physicists that commented similar
this is NOT many, nor is it a representation of any kind of
generally agreed
IOW - Schneib argued correctly and you failed to make your case above
which is what I was pointing out
which is what you are still wrongly arguing
Consensus was just another way of describing the term
generally agreed
and i am not saying you claimed consensus, i am saying you claimed
generally agreed
which you did
your words, not mine, nou
so it is YOU who needs to
Get your facts straight


CapS
@rc
TL;DR
NOT your conversation
NOT going to reply to you again either
just assume that when I 1star you, the following is posted below it

TL;DR
BAITING
TROLLING
FLAMING
reported
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014
i am saying you claimed

generally agreed


And I'm telling you yet again,... I did NOT claim that,... my sources did,... the three (four) prominent physicists that I referenced made that assessment, (and another even claimed it himself). My evidence is that THEY think so.

Again, it DOES NOT matter how many physicists think that others regard decoherence as a solution or of relevance to a solution to the measurement problem, ... but ONLY that a few prominent physicists made that assessment, in order to justify my post saying that it does not.

I don't think you even know what the above "debate" was about. I don't think DaSchieb needs your help,... and I sure as hell don't wish reargue this assinine point through a screen door.

smd
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014


I just went through all you previous posts, and don't see where you had discovered that error prior to today.


I checked, and you're right - the post where I first pointed this out is not to be found. I suspect it has something to do with Chrome issues that I've since discovered.
NOM
3.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014
Because he is a dolt who likes to advertise that Phys.Org employs trolls who abuse their own comment rating system.
If I worked for physorg, there would be a few less trolls around. You for one.

[Btw, NOM, it is not hypocritical of me to fight back against rating trolls. Your ratings are invalid]
No. The only invalid thing is your opinion of my rating. I rate you a 1, because you are a boring, hypocritical tosser who trolls the site with politics.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014
[Btw, NOM, it is not hypocritical of me to fight back against rating trolls. Your ratings are invalid]

No. The only invalid thing is your opinion of my rating. I rate you a 1, because you are a boring, hypocritical tosser who trolls the site with politics.


I did not post politics in this thread. Indeed, rating someone a 1, irrespective of the content of individual posts and/or because you don't like their political pov,.... is troll rating, and thus invalid.

I class you with the likes of the other troll-bots, ... toot, open, lite, FrankHerbert, etc
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2014
Just another troll. Good bye, troll.
@Da Schneib
this is the problem with mixing philosophy with science, really
I would say it's more a matter of confusing science with philosophy. Mixing them stopped being possible when the philosophers lost their minds and started "deconstructing" everything.

Nou tends to swing more towards philo talk which is usually subjective to the individual and not falsifiable (or argues semantics where it is irrelevant), whereas you are talking science which is supported by empirical data and such

this is one huge reason i feel IMHO there should be a division between philo and science, and that philo's should stick to subjective area's, not science
Philosophy used to be able to inform science, but the philosophers went insane and it's no longer useful.

Deconstruct deconstructionism.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2014
Cap'n, check out the Sokal Affair. "post-modern" philosophy is post-rational.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) Just browsing through physorg and saw this from you....
I would say it's more a matter of confusing science with philosophy. Mixing them stopped being possible when the philosophers lost their minds and started "deconstructing" everything.


I have to agree with you there, as I would in any case where any particular discipline goes beyond its 'domain of applicability' and becomes counterproductive. This is sadly the case not only for the 'unreality based philosophy' problem, but also for 'unreality based mathematics' problem. As Einstein once bemoaned...
Since the Mathematicians have invaded my theory, I don't understand it myself anymore!


While the philosophers "deconstructed everything", as you say, the mathematicians have "abstracted everything".

Which is why I've also been working on my reality-based Axiomatic Mathematics to apply to the reality-based ToE.

Anyway, good luck and enjoy your polite and fruitful discourses. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2014
Hi NOM. :) You didn't answer my question as to why your page doesn't show any comments from you, not even your latest above to Noumenon. Here is your page...

https://sciencex....ser/NOM/

...but nothing in your comments list. Why is that? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2014
This is sadly the case not only for the 'unreality based philosophy' problem, but also for 'unreality based mathematics' problem. As Einstein once bemoaned...
Since the Mathematicians have invaded my theory, I don't understand it myself anymore!


While the philosophers "deconstructed everything", as you say, the mathematicians have "abstracted everything".
So would you consider the statement, "I have two oranges," to be "abstract mathematics?"
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
This is sadly the case not only for the 'unreality based philosophy' problem, but also for 'unreality based mathematics' problem. As Einstein once bemoaned...
Since the Mathematicians have invaded my theory, I don't understand it myself anymore!
While the philosophers "deconstructed everything", as you say, the mathematicians have "abstracted everything".
So would you consider the statement, "I have two oranges," to be "abstract mathematics?"
I haven't time now to go into it in depth, mate, as it would entail many concepts/common understandings before we got to the crux of the matter definitively. Suffice for now to say that 'counting' is based on 'units' abstractions which represent units of various REAL composition/properties as 'composite wholes', not necessarily 'ultimate irreducible unit quanta'. So reality CONTEXT is what decides, not abstract CONVENTIONS agreed by proponents for a particular abstractions system. That's all for now. Cheers!
NOM
5 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
...but nothing in your comments list. Why is that? :)
I couldn't possibly comment.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2014
So would you consider the statement, "I have two oranges," to be "abstract mathematics?"
I haven't time now to go into it in depth, mate, as it would entail many concepts/common understandings before we got to the crux of the matter definitively.
But it's a very simple question. "Yes" or "no" will do nicely.

Suffice for now to say that 'counting' is based on 'units' abstractions
I don't think two oranges is abstract. Offer two of them to a monkey, then take one away, and see if the monkey thinks oranges are "abstract." Careful, you might get bit.

which represent units of various REAL composition/properties as 'composite wholes', not necessarily 'ultimate irreducible unit quanta'.
Well, quanta don't behave like oranges, but you can still count them. And see individual ones. With your own eyes, many different ways.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2014
So reality CONTEXT is what decides, not abstract CONVENTIONS agreed by proponents for a particular abstractions system.
The existence of "one" and "two" are axioms of mathematics. It's based on the behavior of the real world, not on abstractions. "One orange" and "two oranges" are not abstract, and they do not differ in an abstract manner, but rather a very concrete one. One makes you full; the other does not. Unless you have a very small stomach. ;)

Similarly, the other axioms of mathematics are based upon real observations. For example we build houses that depend upon the parallel postulate of Euclid's Elements all the time, on the curved Earth, and they stand up just fine (most of the time). We build rockets that work by Newton's Third Law (action and reaction) all the time, too. So it's not abstract either, or if it is, it's accurately founded on real behaviors of real objects.

In fact we adjust mathematics all the time to make it work on non-abstract objects of study.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
Hi NOM. :)

I posted this to you, NOM...
Hi NOM. :) You didn't answer my question as to why your page doesn't show any comments from you, not even your latest above to Noumenon. Here is your page...

https://sciencex....ser/NOM/

...but nothing in your comments list. Why is that? :)


...and you just responded with this, NOM...
I couldn't possibly comment.


You troll Noumenon and then run away when asked why your page does not list any of your posts at all? That smells of TROLL, NOM. If you are not just a troll, please explain yourself and your patently obvious hidden agenda to the forum, NOM. Thanks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
H Schneib. :) I haven't time to fully explain why the answer is not as black and white yes/no as you imply. The context has to be determined first, and whether the context is real or philosophical/maths makes a real difference as to what one is dealing with as to the 'units' and the 'conclusions' within a particular system. For example, the 'dimensionless point' Axiom on which all conventional mathematics (including extended number line theory) is based on for its logics, operations and conclusions is at root merely a PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION. Look it up. In reality there is NO such thing as a 'dimensionless point'. The Axiom is NOT based on reality, as you have been assuming. Hence why I call conventional axiomatic-set-based-maths system 'Unreal'; and why I have been working on REAL reality-based-Axiomatic-set-maths system for my reality-based ToE purposes. Anyhow, I suggest you now review the basis for conventional maths system, and see it's unltimately 'unreal' PHILOSOPHICAL basis! bye
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2014
"Two oranges" is not either concrete or abstract?

I have a lot of trouble believing that, rc. It's pretty obvious.

It looks to me like you're obfuscating again.

You got a one for that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
HI Schneib. Have to go. Let's leave it at that for now, mate. Some good objective advice for you personally: Ditch the ratings system. Real objective and independent thinkers and scientists shouldn't think they live or die by what others think of them. Only the reality explained in reality terms is the final arbiter of 'objective scientific truths'. All else is personal-political irrelevancies. Leave the ratings pages to the trolls and incompetents, because that skewed ratings system is the last resort of the scoundrels who have nothing more to offer science or humanity than their own ego-tripping malignant sabotaging and pretending in lieu of any real original understanding/contribution to the advance of reason, science and humanity based civilization. Eschew the ratings system and the trolls who operate therein to do their dirty work, mate! Good luck in future, Schneib, everyone. Bye for now. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2014
How are "current" and "spin angular momentum" not "the reality explained in reality terms?"

I've already explained them in terms of extremely concrete examples we all face every day. What could be "more real" than that?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2014
I'd like to try to reinterpret this:
Ummm, under what framework?

in QED formalism it is my understanding that paths departing from a "least action" stricture tend to cancel out. In the double slit scenario, more than one path complies with the "least action" requirement, and so not all paths cancel out.
Well, that's true, but it's also true of a single slit. You don't get a single vertical line, you get light all over the back of the box, decreasing from a maximum where the back of the box is in line with the light source through the slit, which is the least action path, and the classical path. This is called "diffraction" and is dependent upon the width of the slit, the wavelength of the light, and the size of the box.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2014
The result is a superposition of the non-canceling paths.
No. All the non-classical paths contribute, but their contribution reduces as the square of the probability, so they have almost no effect very far from the classical path. But not none. OTOH, classically, as you point out, they cancel; so this is where QM predicts something different from classical mechanics, and we can check. And guess what? QM predicts correctly, in this case, and classical mechanics does not. Classical mechanics predicts the non-classical paths cancel out; quantum mechanics predicts they have a very small, but still measurable, effect. And when we measure it, we find out that the second is the case; therefore, we conclude that classical mechanics is inaccurate at some level below the size of a large molecule, and more and more so the smaller the things we are examining.

Good questions, though.
NOM
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
You troll Noumenon and then run away when asked why your page does not list any of your posts at all? That smells of TROLL, NOM. If you are not just a troll, please explain yourself and your patently obvious hidden agenda to the forum, NOM. Thanks.
If you don't understand, I don't have to explain.

Anyway, I only have to look at your post history to see how futile explanations are.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
You troll Noumenon and then run away when asked why your page does not list any of your posts at all? That smells of TROLL, NOM. If you are not just a troll, please explain yourself and your patently obvious hidden agenda to the forum, NOM. Thanks.
If you don't understand, I don't have to explain.

Anyway, I only have to look at your post history to see how futile explanations are.


And yet no one can look at yours, and yet you down rate irrespective of individual post content. Corrupt hypocrite.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
Anyway, I only have to look at your post history to see how futile explanations are
@NOM
Aint THAT the truth!

And yet no one can look at yours
@Noumenon
why does this bother you?
unless, of course, you will pull an rc and bait/troll like above
(@rc-before you butt in, this is a valid factual statement given your last posts to NOM, and any reply will simply get you a 1star and reported)
why is it relevant?
you down rate irrespective of individual post content. Corrupt hypocrite
This is actually hypocrisy
WHY should he follow YOUR rules for rating? There are no guidelines
zephir ignores the sock puppets rule, and you've also admitted this, but you think THAT is ok... why?
Why are you and rc tryign to force everyone to "vote" your specific way?
I vote per content and when i think you are wrong I will 1 star you. period
just like above
you going to call me a hypocrite now? because even the trolls/people i dislike have gotten a 5star from me in past
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2014
[d'Espagnat] a scientist who holds that quantum theory proves consciousness transcends death. In other words, a secular religion, as indicated by his 'hypercosmic God' concept Well said. He is also a recipient of the Tempelton prize, usually given to those who can manage somehow to explain science in religious terms. Even if the connection is not clear to nou, it is clear to the Tempelton committee.
So I try to convince you in other ways that philosophy has relevance by mentioning physicists who know so. Here is another,... Abraham Pais was a well known nuclear physicist, who stated that N. Bohr was a natural successor to I. Kant, a prominent philosopher
-Not surprising as he worked at the niels bohr institute.

"retained what he called the tribal feeling of Jewish identity throughout his life. He became an active member of a Dutch Zionist youth organization (NZSO )"

-And so, if not strictly religious, we can assume that he was spiritually motivated to a certain extent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2014
"retained what he called the tribal feeling of Jewish identity throughout his life. He became an active member of a Dutch Zionist youth organization (NZSO )"

-And so, if not strictly religious, we can assume that he was spiritually motivated to a certain extent
-This last quote of mine is about Abraham Pais,who wrote books such as 'Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein' and 'God's Pickpockets'. Pais says he gave up religion as a boy. Even harder to extricate the spiritual.
And yet no one can look at yours, and yet you down rate irrespective of individual post content. Corrupt hypocrite
-And you continue to post philo drivel even though it has been thoroughly discounted. So you should expect to be downrated and you should refrain from whining about it.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2014
Hi NOM. :)
You troll Noumenon and then run away when asked why your page does not list any of your posts at all? That smells of TROLL, NOM. If you are not just a troll, please explain yourself and your patently obvious hidden agenda to the forum, NOM. Thanks.
If you don't understand, I don't have to explain.

Anyway, I only have to look at your post history to see how futile explanations are.
What's to understand, NOM? You are a troll whose 'comments' list 'hidden'. You won't explain yourself to the forum. You are a troll who doesn't explain himself while you hypocritically disparage others and make cowardly downvotes in others' ratings pages where their comment are listed openly.

NOM, are you that cowardly as well as that much of a troll? If not, then explain yourself. Why doesn't your comments list appear on your page?

I'm sure if you actually explained, everyone would understand perfectly what you are. Is that what you are afraid of? Why so 'shy' NOM? :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2014
CapS.What turns a veteran soldier/fireman into such an insensible hypocrite? For examples...
(@rc-before you butt in, this is a valid factual statement given your last posts to NOM, and any reply will simply get you a 1star and reported)
I asked NOM why his page's comments list is blank. You butt in, and accuse me of butting in? Previously you GRATUITOUSLY misrepresented me to third parties and when I RESPOND to correct/take you to task, you accuse me of butting in? Hypocrite.
WHY should he follow YOUR rules for rating? There are no guidelines
Not MY rules, the rules of scientific objectivity and fair play, not personal-political tactics like YOU et al employ while whining when others (ie, Noumenon) employ the same option in self-defense. Hypocrite.
I vote per content and when i think you are wrong I will 1 star you. period
Then explain to the Forum why you downvoted me 1's for posts supporting the global climate change science/predictions? Hypocrite.

Go on.
NOM
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
If I told you, I'd have to kill you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Hi NOM. :)
Why doesn't your comments list appear on your page?......Why so 'shy' NOM?

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.

The truth behind your real identity and clandestine skulduggery must be so appallingly horrific that you would have to 'silence' the whole forum if you posted your explanation here, even your fellow trolls?!

Come come, NOM, stop being so melodramatic and shy. Be a brave and truthful little troll. Just explain to the Forum why your comments list doesn't appear on your page, hey.

Come on. We we won't tell anyone, NOM! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) Briefly...

Yes, 'counting unit' is an abstraction at root. When 'applied' to 'real world' cases it needs 'contextual information/qualifiers', eg, one 'apple', one 'relatively smaller' apple etc.

That same requirement arises when trying to explain/quantify mathematically REALITY physics energy-space entities/processes. Conventional maths is abstractions based (ie, 'point' concept is notional, not reality, yes?), so cannot ever be 'applied' AS IS to describe/model fundamental REALITY a ToE that is NOT abstractions based; because it 'blows up' into undefineds, indetermineds, singularities, infinities etc which currently bring NO 'contextual meaning' that can help 'make sense' of the fundamental physical reality. Hence my reality-based-Axiomatic-Set maths system approach to avoid that problem from the outset. I can't say more now, for reasons previously stated.

PS: NB: Even your 'brute facts' based on theoretical framework for their interpretation/meaning. Bye. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) Briefly...

Yes, 'counting unit' is an abstraction at root
BS. If you think the difference between one orange and two oranges is "abstract," then monkeys know more about the difference between "abstract" and "concrete" than you do.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Schneib.
If you think the difference between one orange and two oranges is "abstract," then monkeys know more about the difference between "abstract" and "concrete" than you do.
No no no! Why do you not take more time to correctly parse and understand what was posted? Why all the rush to kneejerk responses which miss important things? I already made the distinction between 'counting system' which is abstract, and its application to real things. That is why the additional info/qualifiers I pointed out are necessary when doing so, because the counting system applied on its own will result in nonsense/ambiguity as to 'larger/smaller' etc. real properties which 'sterile' abstract 'counting units' alone cannot represent correctly. The 'apples' are real and concrete insofar as their real underlying energy-space constituents/processes are concerned. So 'differing' apple 'units' need 'qualifier info' beyond just 'unit/number' of 'apples' per se. That was the point. Bye.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
Counting is one of the most basic things you can do with concrete objects, besides eating them, hitting something/someone over the head with them, or building them into a fire or a place to hide from the rain. It's a basic human activity, tied up with ethics and fairness; I get an orange, you get an orange.

And you haven't addressed the fact that there can be no science without counting, as well.

Sorry, rc, you're not convincing me there's science without counting. It's the essence of science: quantification. Philosophy is about qualitative analysis; science is quantitative. Period.

Whatever you come up with, it won't be science if there's no counting.

And once counting has its foot in the door, the rest of mathematics follows it.

You're hosed, dude. There's nowhere to go from here but to admit you'll have to have math if you want to have anything that can even be said to remotely resemble science.

Then there's logic, which is also tied up with math.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
How can the system be abstract when its components are concrete?

It's like saying portland cement and rocks are concrete, but concrete is abstract. Snicker.

You've painted yourself into a corner. You're talking about philosophy, not science. There's no avoiding that if you try to avoid math. No math, no science.

Going back to your old habits, rc? Downvoting people because you don't like the conclusion, even though it's right?

You were doing better than this. You're going to wind up with me voting all your philosophy down, and reporting it too, instead of politely responding. I thought we already did this and you decided you were going to change. You're backsliding.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) What're you on, mate? Get off it quick, as it's undermining your discriminatory faculties! You conflate two obviously different things to make confused strawmen.

Please realize (before kneejerking again) that both maths/physics theory is incomplete (just ask your professors).

Also, all conventional maths/number systems are based on NOTIONAL 'point' which is ITSELF nothing BUT a 'philosophical concept'; so don't talk so disparagingly about philosophy; it underpins your current mathematics/number systems!

It's almost as if you did NOT wiki/understand point about 'dimensionless point' being 'philosophical notion' pure and simple!

Please understand once for all: 'concrete constituents' NOT abstract; but LABEL 'concrete' we give to ALL SORTS of 'concretion recipes' (which may DIFFER in said real constituents) IS abstract.

Hence needed qualifiers to further explain TYPE, QUALITY, PROPERTIES etc in real 'applications'.

Slow down! Stop kneejerking! Bye. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
PS: Schneib: Your downvotes/upvotes mean nothing if you are not in any position/understanding sufficiently cogent state to judge while kneejerking and strawmanning.

In any case, you need to drop your obsession with thinking that ratings from you or anyone else here means anything at all. You are using personal-political tactics to skew the actual state of play/debate. Drop all that irrelevant shit, mate; for your own personal reputation and for your own intellectual/scientific advancement's sake. If you persist with all these 'tactics' which make you so readily miss obvious points/differences, then you will be better off without resort to such tactics, mate. More good objective advice as from a friend in both science and humanity. Good luck! :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
Dudebro, rc, no math no science. "Science without math" == philosophy, where they deconstruct everything and destroy all knowledge.

And that's another of those brute facts you hate so much.

Get over it.

And BTW if you don't want to be criticized for being petty, then don't downvote just because you don't like the truth.

Get over that, too.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Schneib. :) Now you are just 'sloganeering' as well. When will your tactics end so your understanding in context begin, mate? You are making a mockery of any talent you posses, misusing it to contrive personal-political strategies instead of honest direct comprehension of what is posted to you for YOUR benefit in this instance.

You missed that the 'dimensionless point concept' Axiom and all that follows therefrom in conventional mathematics is PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION at bottom.

Did you understand that? If so, then why the hell keep sloganeering and evading that simple straightforwaed counter to any and all your tactics/disparagements to date?

Really, Schneib. I had a glimpse of the potential which your talent has for becoming a great scientific intellect; but you're betraying that talent/yourself, science and humanity by WASTING it all by employing it merely for ego-tripping sloganeering evasion-riddled 'tactics' for DENIAL of the points fairly made to you. Not good, mate. :(
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
PS: Schneib. :)
And BTW if you don't want to be criticized for being petty, then don't downvote just because you don't like the truth. Get over that, too.
What the hell are you on about now, mate? I haven't 'voted' on anyone in yonks! And even when I did so long ago, it was RARE as hens teeth. Are you mistaking me for someone else again? Is that where some of this unreasoning disparagement/attitude comes from? Please disabuse yourself of any such mis-impressions about me, quicksmart, mate. And look to your own motives and MO, ok? Thanks!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
No, I'm reducing obvious facts to easily assimilated soundbites.

The difference between science and philosophy is that the first deals with quantities as well as qualities, and the second deals only with qualities.

There are no dimensionless points in science. Particle physicists used to deal with such things, until they realized they cause infinities in their analysis. Now they deal with more realistic, extended entities with non-zero size. This is called "string physics."

It appears you are a proponent of string theory. Who knew.

And BTW if you don't want to be criticized for being petty, then don't downvote just because you don't like the truth. Get over that, too.
What the hell are you on about now, mate? I haven't 'voted' on anyone in yonks!
Now you're just BSing.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 16, 2014
Schneib. :) Easily 'misleading' soundbites, did you mean? Because that's what your latest posts amount to when looked at closely in the context of our exchange.

How many times does it have to be told you? The actual real things are 'concrete' and not abstractions. It is the mathematics system which is currently applied TO such things that is abstractions based and totally unsuitable for describing the full reality in energy-space terms.

Get that? It's not physical things that are abstractions, it's modeling/maths system being applied to same that is abstractions based (from the philosophical notion of 'dimensionless point' which the number line and other geometries are based on). Calculus comes closest to reality via its 'infinitesimals' constructs, but these not properly handled in the broader mathematical 'inifinities of dimensionless points' approach which conventional maths models invoke, ignoring REAL 'infinitesimals of physical effectiveness' realities. Can't say more. ok?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. That was me who made the downvote. It was a mistake and I am sorry. It got pushed when I was meaning to vote down on somebody else.

@ Really-Skippy. Please you do not jump in with any foolishment for me right now. If you haven't noticed I have not been making the many comments lately. I am real busy trying to get ready to take a license test for the radio lately and don't have time to be defending my honor from dishonorable foolishment. Okayeei?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
PS: Schneib:
And BTW if you don't want to be criticized for being petty, then don't downvote just because you don't like the truth. Get over that, too.
What the hell are you on about now, mate? I haven't 'voted' on anyone in yonks!
Now you're just BSing.
What is that supposed to mean, Mate? Please tell us what info you are working from to make that "BSing" accusation.

Again, so there is no misunderstanding: I have not voted for yonks; and rarely even when I did so long ago. Period.

So, what is your "BSing" accusation supposed to mean, Schneib?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. That was me who made the downvote. It was a mistake and I am sorry. It got pushed when I was meaning to vote down on somebody else.
Thanks for telling me!

My apologies, rc, it wasn't you. I'm glad you're not backsliding THAT far.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. That was me who made the downvote. It was a mistake and I am sorry. It got pushed when I was meaning to vote down on somebody else.

@ Really-Skippy. Please you do not jump in with any foolishment for me right now. If you haven't noticed I have not been making the many comments lately. I am real busy trying to get ready to take a license test for the radio lately and don't have time to be defending my honor from dishonorable foolishment. Okayeei?
But you have time for your continuing dishonorable foolishment that led you to downvote Schneib by mistake? Hilarious hypocrisy, Ira! And since when have you possessed/demonstrated any 'honor' for you to 'defend', Ira-bot-sot? For as long as you downvote from a list without bothering to read and properly and fairly understand the whole context and subtleties of what is posted, then you have neither 'honor' nor 'intellect' worth the mentioning let alone the 'defending'. So don't bother, Ira. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
Schneib. :) Easily 'misleading' soundbites, did you mean? Because that's what your latest posts amount to when looked at closely in the context of our exchange.
There is no science without math.

Sorry, man, this is a brute physical fact. There is nowhere to hide.

But you have time for your continuing dishonorable foolishment
That got you a 1, rc. Ira was honest and 'fessed up when he made a mistake; it was an honorable act.

And you abused him for it.

Don't do that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. That was me who made the downvote. It was a mistake and I am sorry. It got pushed when I was meaning to vote down on somebody else.
Thanks for telling me!

My apologies, rc, it wasn't you. I'm glad you're not backsliding THAT far.
Ok, apology accepted. But neither your mistaken accusation nor your honest and brave apology would have been necessary if you paid better attention instead of kneejerking to conclusions because you fixate on ratings/tactics instead of actually aknowledging the point made fairly to you in this instance.

As to 'backsliding': did you note my disappointment at your kneejerking/strawmanning etc while avoiding my point about abstract maths being based on philosophical/abstract Axiom of 'dimensionless point' etc (as distinct from the real concrete things it is currently being applied to; which needs aditional qualifying info to make sense; and in some cases, ie the ToE) cannot yet fully represent reality?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Schneib. :) Easily 'misleading' soundbites, did you mean? Because that's what your latest posts amount to when looked at closely in the context of our exchange.
There is no science without math.
Will you please STOP strawmanning. I have NOT said maths is "not part of doing science". You keep falsely implying it. It's the conventional maths' INADEQUACY/incompleteness that is the problem. That's why I am completing/reality-basing it from scratch, on novel reality-based Axioms set which CAN do the job without 'blowing up' as current maths does.

Sorry, man, this is a brute physical fact. There is nowhere to hide.
No-one's 'hiding'. And your "brutal fact" slogan is wearing thin from overuse, misuse and abuse.

Ira was honest and 'fessed up when he made a mistake;
He could hardly have avoided it if/when you checked properly and saw his username as the downvoter. And his gratuitous/hypocritical snide aside to me deserved censure. He got it.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
You keep saying math is abstract, and is a problem in science that you intend to fix, rc.

How else should I interpret this?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
You keep saying math is abstract, and is a problem in science that you intend to fix, rc. How else should I interpret this?
Where have you been during our exchange on this express point, mate...on the Moon? It's all there. You just need to parse and understand it properly, and not from your own biased reading/strawmanning fixations/perspective. That maths is based on abstract notion at root, has already been explained to you. Also that maths is incomplete has also been explained to you. That it is patently inadequate to model a reality-based physically real energy-space based ToE is already apparent since the professional abstractions/maths based incomplete theory is still incomplete and abstract even after a HUNDRED YEARS of professional 'brains and maths' efforts/treatments of the observed phenomena. How do you interpret that century's worth of FAILURE using current maths and 'space-time' abstractions trying to describe the underlying ToE reality, Schneib?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
That maths is based on abstract notion at root, has already been explained to you.
No, it hasn't. You can't even get to the notion that two oranges is not abstract.

Stop trying to tell me you're going to redefine math. It's silly, especially when you're talking to someone who knows Gödel's Theorem and its relation to the Cretan Liar paradox (this sentence is a lie).

That math is concrete has been explained to you, and you have not refuted it; you've attempted to obfuscate some sort of "replacement math," totally ignoring the fact that you're claiming by saying so to be smarter than Einstein (or for that matter, Gauss, who was a real mathematical genius). You keep claiming you can't explain it because you think someone will "plagiarize" it, but my opinion is you got nothing except a bunch of half-baked philosophy. You certainly don't know enough physics to talk rationally about it.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics says you're wrong, and arrogant to boot.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2014
Just in case this got buried and you missed it earlier, NOM...

Hi NOM. :)
Why doesn't your comments list appear on your page?......Why so 'shy' NOM?

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.

The truth behind your real identity and clandestine skulduggery must be so appallingly horrific that you would have to 'silence' the whole forum if you posted your explanation here, even your fellow trolls?!

Come come, NOM, stop being so melodramatic and shy. Be a brave and truthful little troll. Just explain to the Forum why your comments list doesn't appear on your page, hey.

Come on. We we won't tell anyone, NOM! :)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) Why parrot already known, assumptions-ridden, 'incomplete counter arguments' against the REALITY situation I have observed to you? That is the point here. Godels incompleteness theorem applies to ABSTRACT maths using abstract Axioms for its foundations and logical consequences/results.

Whereas UNIVERSAL physical REALITY is NOT 'incomplete'; nor is it 'abstract'. It exist objectively and is a total system which has its basis of fundamentals which are NOT DEPENDENT on 'assumptions', abstractions' or such like artificial constructs for its existence and evolution.

Hence Godel incompleteness theorem and other assumptive/abstract statements in any conventional world construct/mathematics etc system is NOT APPLICABLE, since the Universal System is reality-based 'from go to whoa'.

It only needed someone to recognize this; and do the necessary SPECIFIC reworking of maths/physics explanations/model to complete the real maths-physics ToE. No more, no less. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2014
Come on, NOM. Why have you switched off your comments listing? Ashamed and afraid of being too easily 'sussed out' as a comments/ratings troll? Go on, explain yourself to the Forum, NOM. We won't tell anyone! :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
Why insult people by telling them they're "parroting?"

First thing you say in your post.

First thing I say in my post is "No." Because you're wrong. That's not an insult, it's just a statement of fact; but it appears, from your response, that you think being wrong is "bad."

Why is that, rc?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
There are no dimensionless points in science. Particle physicists used to deal with such things, until they realized they cause infinities in their analysis. Now they deal with more realistic, extended entities with non-zero size. This is called "string physics."


This is laughable. The standard model of particle physics is categorically NOT based on "string physics",.... but rather QFT, which includes the Dirac delta. In fact "string theory" is far from main stream or even a workable theory at present.

Also, while I can't comment on rc's toe as I don't know anything about it,... he is at least correct in that fundamentally mathematics, while essential to science of course (yet another invented point of contention from DaSchnieb),.... is still itself an abstraction of reality. To equate mathematics with Reality, ala Max Tegmark or Penrose, is itself a philosophy.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
,... Of course infinities are dealt with via renormalization not string physics, and..further it is only possible for a mathematical model to abstract observable quantities, in a way that links one to another to allow for predictions of yet other observables,... these observables themselves being contingent upon epistemic conditions by definition. Indeed QM had had to drop,... locality, counter-factuality, causality, separability, .... as an artificial conceptual syntheses. This implies an abstraction,... to obtain predictive knowledge at the cost of intuitive understanding. In QM 'momentum' is a differential operator, and there is no time operator. These are abstractions and conditions placed upon reality, not the reality itself.

That's not an insult, it's just a statement of fact; but it appears, from your response, that you think being wrong is "bad."


Why do YOU equate "being wrong" with "lying" as you attempted to imply in this thread a dozen times?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
Not that I think I was wrong above, however willing to admit it when I am.

,.... where you "lying" when you stated, ....

Particle physicists USED to deal with such things, until they realized they cause infinities in their analysis. Now they deal with more realistic, extended entities with non-zero size. This is called "string physics."


... or just wrong,... or maybe something convoluted in between the two?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
EDIT: "[were] you "lying" when you stated,"
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
There are no dimensionless points in science. Particle physicists used to deal with such things, until they realized they cause infinities in their analysis. Now they deal with more realistic, extended entities with non-zero size. This is called "string physics."
This is laughable. The standard model of particle physics is categorically NOT based on "string physics"
Straw man fallacy detected.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
There are no dimensionless points in science. Particle physicists used to deal with such things, until they realized they cause infinities in their analysis. Now they deal with more realistic, extended entities with non-zero size. This is called "string physics."
This is laughable. The standard model of particle physics is categorically NOT based on "string physics"
Straw man fallacy detected.


How so? String theory is not an operational theory.

Vague diversion detected.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
You claimed I said the SM is based on string theory. That was a lie, and a straw man attack. Now go read it again and this time pay attention to what it actually says, not what you can lawyer your way into claiming, a very bad habit.

You can always tell philosophers. They always try to lawyer their way into deconstruction.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
BTW, worth mentioning that the infinities I was talking about are the ones that appear when we try to make a quantum gravity theory, which cannot be renormalized away.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Why insult people by telling them they're "parroting?"
To quote YOU, Schneib:
It's not an insult, it's fact.
In that it described what you did: parroted orthodoxy while ignoring the point made which challenges that very 'parroted' orthodoxy.

Really, Schneib, do you ever listen to yourself before clicking "Submit"? Your double standards and hypocrisy shows up regularly in your responses. Eg, your habit of:

- kneejerking to gratuitous "liar" and "BSing" accusations even though you were obviously wrong;

- using 'lawyer tactics' to evade/ignore the science points explained to you;

- using 'strawmen' in lieu of actually acknowledging my knowledge/perspective may be more 'complete' than your 'parroted' orthodoxy at this point;

- misrepresenting your own subjective 'opinions' as if they are objective 'brute facts'; and of course,

- 'sloganeering' and 'one liners' in lieu of reasoned response.

That is insulting behavior, Schneib. See to it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2014
PS: Schneib: Anyhow, mate, I really have run out of time for all this and your own 'tactics'. If you are hoping to become a real scientist one day, then take my objective good advice and drop the pre-programmed parroting and 'debaters tactics'; and concentrate instead on the actual discourse on its 'evolving' merits depending on the ideas/arguments presented, not on your kneejerking misconstruings and 'preferences' as to what is or is not 'brute facts' etc. Ok?

Whether you take my advice is entirely up to you and your character. But I beg you not to betray your intellect or your talents by misusing them to just 'win debates at all costs' to decency and scientific objectivity and fairness in discourse with others.

I trust that your better character and your better-directed talents will shine through better than they have so far. Sincerely. Anyhow, no hard feelings, mate! From your, and this Forums', friend in Science and Humanity: best wishes for the future! RealityCheck. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
@NOM: It's apparent you owe certain people whom you've trolled an apology; as well as to the Forum at large wherein you have trolled. Now would be a good time. Then you can start afresh, hey? Good luck with your choices in this and in future matters, NOM. Bye for now! :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
Why insult people by telling them they're "parroting?"
To quote YOU, Schneib:
It's not an insult, it's fact.
But it's not a fact. Unless you claim to be clairvoyant or telepathic, you can't possibly know that. So not only is it an insult, it's a lie.

OTOH, detecting you being wrong doesn't require any superpowers. Especially when you claim two oranges is abstract.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
your own 'tactics'. If you are hoping to become a real scientist one day
They're not tactics, they're simple observation of your statements and comparison with reality. Two oranges is not abstract and I've already proposed a simple test of that fact with a monkey, which you have ignored.

I don't hope to become a "real scientist one day." I have a day job.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
You claimed I said the SM is based on string theory. That was a lie, and a straw man attack. Now go read it again and this time pay attention to what it actually says, not what you can lawyer your way into claiming, a very bad habit.


No?,... lets see it again,....

There are no dimensionless points in science. Particle physicists used to deal with such things, until they realized they cause infinities in their analysis. Now they deal with more realistic, extended entities with non-zero size. This is called "string physics."


Gee, it sure does appear as though you said Particle Physicists use string theory (implying particle physics must be based on string theory now). Particle physicists still use the SM. They certainly have not ditched the sm for string theory as the latter is not even a workable one yet. No mention of quantum gravity anywhere.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) I have to log out now, and don't know when I will have time to post again, so briefly...

Mate, I have given you good objective advice. I have pointed out your own flaws which you accuse others of. Your 'tactics' are obvious to all except yourself it seems. No amount of your further 'semantics' tactics will cover the obvious. If you persist in these tactics and flaws, you will only damage whatever reputation you do have, as well as betray your better character and talents for whatever it is you think is your calling in life. But know this: being a scientist is what someone IS if they follow the scientific method with objective and impartial dedication irrespective of personality cult or other subjective irrelevances. If you are professing to be discussing science matters having regard to objectivity and scientific method, then you are professing to be discussing, effectively therefore, AS a scientist. So try to become a better one. Good luck, Schneib, everyone. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
You're lying again, noum. Point out where I said the SM is BASED UPON string physics.

rc, two oranges is not abstract and all your lawyering won't change that simple fact.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
You're lying again, noum. Point out where I said the SM is BASED UPON string physics.


By saying "Particle physicists USED to deal with such things, until they realized they cause infinities in their analysis [renormalization]",... and then "NOW they deal with more realistic, extended entities with non-zero size. This is called "STRING PHYSICS.",.... this implies to me that particle physics now makes use of string theory. This is false.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
So I never said "based upon." Ever.

And you're still lying about it.

See? I can lawyer too. I think it's a waste of time, but it's fun teasing you with your own, as rc puts it, "tactics."
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
Here's a mystery: how come all philosophers hate string physics?

It's like religious freaks hating on Darwin, or climate deniers hating on Mann. Almost a definition of the class.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
rc, two oranges is not abstract and all your lawyering won't change that simple fact.
@Da Schneib
Notice how he is taking up some of your argument tactics and phrases?
interesting, isn't it?
Keep your eyes peeled, you will see him assimilate "power phrases" and other good logical arguments to use on others (and back at you) even if it doesn't warrant them

i am just downvoting him and reporting him
it is bad enough to troll here, but a troll gang-up is worse
wonder why this doesn't qualify as "troll gang behavior" and denounced by the great pontificator of "voting, science, behaviour, physics and ToE justice"

and for when he butts in: you can pass this on to him

just assume I am responding after all your posts by posting the following
TROLLING
BAITING
BULLYING
REPORTED

THANKS for passing that on to him for me Schneib... i gotta run
driving for a few days
PEACE
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2014
Drive carefully. Hope everything goes as well as it can for you. See you around soon, Cap'n.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
rc, two oranges is not abstract and all your lawyering won't change that simple fact.
@Da Schneib
Notice how he is taking up some of your argument tactics and phrases?
interesting, isn't it?
Keep your eyes peeled, you will see him assimilate "power phrases" and other good logical arguments to use on others (and back at you) even if it doesn't warrant them
Philosophers who try to appoint themselves as physicists always make this mistake. You can usually use it to make them tie themselves in knots. Then you bring the hammer down: bring up the original subject and show they tried to divert the conversation (changing the subject, I usually call it) away from the arguments they have no answer to. Which is usually the central argument I'm making, curiously enough. Heh.

They're generally good enough to do it, but not good enough to deal with it when they're caught cheating. Like most cheaters. Transparent. Humans have evolved for millions of years to detect cheaters.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2014
So I never said "based upon." Ever.

And you're still lying about it.


I never said that you used the phrase "based upon". Why are you manufacturing more irrelevent charges with each post? People tend to project their own contextual mind-set onto others,... which explains why you have charged others in this thread with "lying" dozens of times now.

Your post(s) remain for posterity, to speak for themselves.

It is rather sad that you're apparently satisfied with impressing readers without a capacity for unbiased and independent analysis of your comments (i.e. Stumpy & NOM), while remaining disinterested for those who can. You are the tallest midget in the room.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2014
Here's a mystery: how come all philosophers hate string physics?

It's like religious freaks hating on Darwin, or climate deniers hating on Mann. Almost a definition of the class.


I've never heard this charge until you posted it. Is this another invention of yours? You do know that plenty of physicist reject it as well,... Penrose, Krauss, Smolen, etc.

It is an ironic one only because inductively unfounded speculations tend to strengthen orthodoxy, something religion relies upon. A modern day string enthusiast-Archimedes, could say,... 'grant me enough degrees of freedom and 10^100 false vacua in which to stand, and I can explain all possible mathematical worlds'.

Hardly illuminating, since we only live in one possible world. Does the theory generate 10^100-1 metaphysical worlds? No religion has ever been THAT efficient.

Also, proper science should not arbitrarily invoke extra dimensions unless they are individually, independently, and empirically justified.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2014
,... and btw there is nothing to hate in string theory, except what it does to scientific integrity, ...as operationally it is an non entity.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
I'm lawyering just like you are, noum. You seem to want to do that instead of discussing physics. To catch birds with a mirror is the ideal snare.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2014
Hey noum, ever hear of Kaluza-Klein theory?

Kaluza *derived* Maxwell's equations by adding an extra dimension (a fifth, in addition to spacetime) and proceeding exactly as Einstein did to derive his field theory of gravity, which we call "General Relativity Theory."

Einstein objected that matter and energy would "leak" into such a dimension, and could see no way to solve that problem.

Klein did; make the dimension small, and the matter and energy can't "leak" into it.

That's the progenitor of string physics. The forces, with their unitary and special unitary symmetries of one, two, and three dimensions add another six dimensions to spacetime, which is the symmetry that generates gravity. Thus, ten dimensions; six small ones and four big ones, one of them hyperbolic instead of right circular.

contd
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2014
Because this theory proposes that matter and energy are one- or greater dimensional manifolds, rather than "points" of infinitely small size, it avoids the infinities in quantum gravity theories; it generates a quantum gravity theory that doesn't give infinite probabilities.

All of physics then becomes a matter of dimensions; the basic underlying reality is dimensions, and their sizes and shapes. How these sizes and shapes can vary determines the number of possible universes. All the rest of the behaviors of matter and energy are determined, given our visible universe's dimensional sizes and shapes, by the laws of physics that emerge not only from this dimensionality, but from the various available winding modes of strings around the dimensions.

So, you see, GR results in string physics. And like its progenitor, string physics is enormously mathematically complex; but this also means it is powerful enough to give us quantum gravity theory.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
You mention Penrose and Smolen. They have actual theories (by which I mean self- and externally-consistent mathematical structures, not actual physical theories supported by experimental results, but not at odds with any known facts, either) that they propose as alternatives to string physics.

Penrose thinks twistors explain it; Smolen has Loop Quantum Gravity. Both approaches are mathematically reasonable, and very well supported; both are extensions of GR just as string physics is.

So, what's your theory? Or do you even have one that provides quantum gravity?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
Oh, and Krauss is a proponent of the inflationary universe; see his A Universe From Nothing.

Don't I recall you playing similar philosophical logic games using logical fallacies and other rhetorical tricks to deny inflation? Maybe not, but I seem to remember it, and it's consistent with your rejection of string physics.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
So it seems your alternatives to string physics are no better supported by experimental evidence than string physics is.

Gee, what a surprise.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2014
CapS. Don't you ever learn, CapS? Apparently not. You make much of your boast that you are "an old guy who has gone back to school to learn"; but you don't even stop to consider that I am an old guy who NEVER STOPPED learning.

So, CapS, what you are 'learning' now is by rote; not understood by you in any depth. So you are just a trusting and parroting acolyte of orthodoxy which is shifting even as you are 'trying to catch up belatedly' by 'only now going back to school'.

CapS, stop your hypocritical, ignorant, malignant, sycophantic cheering/suck-ups, baits and trolls. You're embarrassing everyone on all 'sides', not just yourself and your 'current teachers/classmates', with your self-deluding claims to being an "investigator" worth his salt. You were already proven to be just a CREEPY and possibly DANGEROUS STALKER armed with sniper rifles and internet connection via which you harass and stalk the wrong person by mistake!

So zip it, soldier! And stop digging!
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2014
The Cap'n is an easy target because he's still learning physics.

You are a coward for not engaging me, rc. And for using logical fallacies as rhetorical devices.

And THAT is an insult, deserved because you're trying to substitute philosophy for physics.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) Let's first get one thing straight, mate: I am NOT a philosopher, I am an independent thinker, scientist and observer. Period. That is why I tried to point out to YOU that the conventional maths is based on a 'philosophical notion' of 'dimensionless point', and not reality physically possible energy-space process/entity. Ok? It is the current maths which invokes philosophical notions for its Axioms.

I am actively engaged in replacing the relevant axioms with ones that are NOT merely philosophy-based notions, but REAL physically referential and effective energy-space entities. I am AGAINST philosophy-based ABSTRACTIONS in maths. Hence my reality-based maths system for my reality-based physical ToE purposes. Ok? Good. :)

As to 'counting' your TWO oranges: how about we now 'take away 7 oranges' from your two. That leaves NEGATIVE 5 'oranges'? So both the counting system and the 'oranges' units are IMAGINARY abstractions. See? :)

Gotta go for now. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2014
Schneib. :)
The Cap'n is an easy target because he's still learning physics.

You are a coward for not engaging me, rc. And for using logical fallacies as rhetorical devices.

And THAT is an insult, deserved because you're trying to substitute philosophy for physics.
I have tried to REMOVE philosophy from mathematics/physics, and you come back with that OPPOSITE conclusion? What are you on mate?

If it's the medication you are taking for your heart disease, then be more careful!

Schneib, for someone who resorts to 'liar' and 'BSing' accusations at the drop of a hat before even realizing you are wrong, you seem to be as insensible as the CapS is in this area; especially when your one liners and evasions have demonstrated your own failures of character and scientific discussion integrity. See to it before I have to reassess your potential for learning the lessons you need to learn before you can take any sort of high ground in such matters. Good luck.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) Let's first get one thing straight, mate: I am NOT a philosopher, I am an independent thinker, scientist and observer.
Problem is, you make obvious gaffes like claiming two oranges is abstract.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Hi Schneib. :) Let's first get one thing straight, mate: I am NOT a philosopher, I am an independent thinker, scientist and observer.
Problem is, you make obvious gaffes like claiming two oranges is abstract.
They are 'units' of anything you care to substitute abstractly for 'oranges'. That is what maths does, 'generalize' the system, based on philosophical 'points' Axiomatic abstractions. It is real energy-space REALITY PHYSICS that gives real context and meaning to any 'units' and 'counting' abstractions. That is the point of making a reality-based axiomatic set for the reality maths which has a hope of actually describing reality physics when modeling it using that maths (not the conventional philosophy abstractions riddled maths as at present). And those 'negative 5 oranges' exist 'concretely' where, exactly, Schneib? You are too narrow and inflexible in your horizons. Think of the wider perspective, mate. Gotta go. Bye.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2014
But the difference between one orange and two oranges gets you bit by the monkey.

It's not abstract at all. It's as concrete as it gets. If you don't think so explain the monkey.

And, of course, being based upon these concrete concepts, science, too, is not abstract. It's the ultimate in concreteness. That's why it works so well that we have refrigerators, jet aircraft, computers, and nuclear reactors.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2014
So, you see, GR results in string physics.


Lets not get too carried away here. The central idea is gauge theory, a non-vanishing connection on fibre bundles,... in the GR case, tangent/cotangent spaces ; the commutator of covariant derivatives operating on a tensor does not vanish in a curved space.

Likewise the SM developed on this notion (gauge theory), and justified the extra "spaces" at each point on symmetries and conservation laws,... and was more sucessful in incorporating the weak and strong forces.

I don't know much about string theory other than it's basic history. It may be the greatest scientific accomplishment in human history, or it may be it's greatest dead end. Yet to be determined. There is no working quantum gravity theory at present that I know of in any case.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2014
As a positivist I don't care what the mathematical structure is as long as it allows for predictions of Observables,.... because I'm not going to confuse the mathematical entities with Reality itself (like many do with the quantum wavefunction), but rather as just a means of making predictions of Observations.

If string theory is a success people will wrongly conclude that things are made of strings, even despite to observe one, would require a particle accelerator with 10 million billion times the 'resolving' power of the LHC.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2014
,... What can be said to be objectively real in physics are formless things like symmetries and conservation laws justified by observation,..... not mathematical symmetries of themselves.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2014
The notion of quantum immortality is derived from Everett's many worlds interpretation and if it's not borderline secular religion,... then what is?

"Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: His consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death" - Keith Lynch

Metaphysics.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2014
,... What can be said to be objectively real in physics are formless things like symmetries and conservation laws justified by observation,..... not mathematical symmetries of themselves.
Really? Then where does Noether's Theorem come from? It says every conservation law is dual to a continuous symmetry. For example, the symmetry of experimental results over rotation is dual to conservation of angular momentum.

Also, you forgot dimensions.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2014
Problem is, Many Worlds works as an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

That's the thing about interpretations; no one has found a way to prove any of them wrong.

Now you're trying poisoning the well, a logical fallacy.

But if you're wondering what my "favorite" interpretation is, it's Consistent Histories.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2014
So, you see, GR results in string physics.
The central idea is gauge theory, a non-vanishing connection on fibre bundles,... in the GR case, tangent/cotangent spaces ; the commutator of covariant derivatives operating on a tensor does not vanish in a curved space.
What's a "cotangent space?" And what have "fiber bundles" to do with gauge theory?

Likewise the SM developed on this notion (gauge theory), and justified the extra "spaces" at each point on symmetries and conservation laws,... and was more sucessful in incorporating the weak and strong forces.
Ummm, the weak and strong nuclear forces (the second is actually more accurately called the "color force," the strong force is its residual force) each have their own QFTs; electroweak theory and QCD.

The SM is not "a theory;" it's a whole collection of them.

contd
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2014
OK, a little quick research showed you're not just making stuff up.

OTOH, it's also true that bringing this level of detail is an effort to obfuscate. Which is typical of what I've seen from you so far.

Furthermore, you didn't actually respond to my post; Kaluza-Klein theory is a perfectly natural outgrowth of GR. Particularly since it 1) derives Maxwell's equations in the same manner that Einstein derived the Einstein field equations, and 2) answers Einstein's objection to the theory.

At least you've stopped slanging me (although I suspect you're about to start again).
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2014
,... What can be said to be objectively real in physics are formless things like symmetries and conservation laws justified by observation,..... not mathematical symmetries of themselves.

Really? Then where does Noether's Theorem come from? It says every conservation law is dual to a continuous symmetry. For example, the symmetry of experimental results over rotation is dual to conservation of angular momentum.


Although Noether's Theorem is a mathematical proof, it does not rely on mathematical symmetries, but instead physical ones,... in particular of the 'action' principal of Maupertuis, for Lagrangians and Hamiltonians.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2014
Likewise the SM developed on this notion (gauge theory), and justified the extra "spaces" at each point on symmetries and conservation laws,... and was more successful in incorporating the weak and strong forces.

Ummm, the weak and strong nuclear forces [...] each have their own QFTs; electroweak theory and QCD. The SM is not "a theory;" it's a whole collection of them.


Yes, I never implied otherwise. The SM is a unified Yang Mills gauge theory. Just as the electroweak gauge theory combines quantum electrodynamics QED U(1) with the weak interaction, into SU(2) X U(1),... the SM combines the strong interaction SU(3) with the electroweak from above, into SU(2) X U(1) X SU(3).
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2014
it's also true that bringing this level of detail is an effort to obfuscate.


I merely wanted to point out that GR did not result in string theory per se,... but rather the underlying mathematical machinery of tacking on more dimensions to the four of GR did.

Kaluza-Klein theory is a perfectly natural outgrowth of GR. Particularly since it 1) derives Maxwell's equations in the same manner that Einstein derived the Einstein field equations, and 2) answers Einstein's objection to the theory.


I will concede you on this point.

Furthermore, you didn't actually respond to my post; Kaluza-Klein theory is a perfectly natural outgrowth of GR


I did, I just failed to make it clear. I will correct with an edit,....

"Likewise the SM developed on this notion (gauge theory), and justified the extra "spaces" at each point on symmetries and conservation laws,... and was more successful in incorporating the weak and strong forces [than Kaluza-Klein]."
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2014
,... What can be said to be objectively real in physics are formless things like symmetries and conservation laws justified by observation,..... not mathematical symmetries of themselves.

Really? Then where does Noether's Theorem come from? It says every conservation law is dual to a continuous symmetry. For example, the symmetry of experimental results over rotation is dual to conservation of angular momentum.


Although Noether's Theorem is a mathematical proof, it does not rely on mathematical symmetries, but instead physical ones,... in particular of the 'action' principal of Maupertuis, for Lagrangians and Hamiltonians.
Are you seriously suggesting that Lagrangians and their progeny, Hamiltonians, are incorrect?

QM and QFT are based upon these functions. Are all the physicists who have used them wrong?

Really?

You force me to ask questions like this.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2014
Yes, I never implied otherwise.[/quote]Well, you never *intended* to imply otherwise... but in fact you did so. I accept that you're backing down from that claim.

The SM is a unified Yang Mills gauge theory. Just as the electroweak gauge theory combines quantum electrodynamics QED U(1) with the weak interaction, into SU(2) X U(1),... the SM combines the strong interaction SU(3) with the electroweak from above, into SU(2) X U(1) X SU(3).
That's correct and I said so above (if this is the right thread.)

So what are you disagreeing with, again?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2014
it's also true that bringing this level of detail is an effort to obfuscate.
I merely wanted to point out that GR did not result in string theory per se,... but rather the underlying mathematical machinery of tacking on more dimensions to the four of GR did.
Deriving Maxwell's Equations by just adding an extra dimension seems highly indicative to me. Furthermore, being able to describe QCD and electroweak theory by adding three and two more dimensions, when making the extra dimension for electricity works, and the only objection Einstein could come up with being obviated by making them small dimensions, seems even more indicative. The symmetries associated with the EM, weak, and color charges fitting right into this framework make it even more plausible.

And there is no more evidence for LQG or twistor theory than there is for string physics; considerably less, actually.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2014
,... What can be said to be objectively real in physics are formless things like symmetries and conservation laws justified by observation,..... not mathematical symmetries of themselves.

Really? Then where does Noether's Theorem come from? It says every conservation law is dual to a continuous symmetry. For example, the symmetry of experimental results over rotation is dual to conservation of angular momentum.


Although Noether's Theorem is a mathematical proof, it does not rely on mathematical symmetries, but instead physical ones,... in particular of the 'action' principal of Maupertuis, for Lagrangians and Hamiltonians.
Are you seriously suggesting that Lagrangians and their progeny, Hamiltonians, are incorrect?


What?! Where have I said anything even approaching that?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2014
Just askin'.

How about the action principle? You OK with that?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2014
Just askin'.


No, you're not "just asking", you're accusing me of saying things that you invented on the spot, as you've done several times in this thread.

How about the action principle? You OK with that?


How could I not be ?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2014
The notion of Quantum immortality is derived from Everett's many worlds interpretation and if it's not borderline secular religion,... then what is?

"Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: His consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death" - Keith Lynch

Metaphysics.

Now you're trying poisoning the well, a logical fallacy


I agree, but since you did not object to smd doing the same wrt d'Espagnat with "hypercosmic god as a secular religion" and "quantum consciousness", I presumed such tactics were acceptable to you.

Here's some more,... Everett was a drunk and failed father, who never even obtained a job in physics.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2014
Doesn't matter to me. I'm not all that impressed with the MWI in the first place. Slang Everett all you like.

And I'm just trying to figure out what physics you accept. After what I've seen you reject, I think it's reasonable to question that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2014
To equate mathematics with Reality... is itself a philosophy
Horseshit.

"Not only do mathematicians and philosophers go about their business in very different ways, on the whole they don't mix. Mathematicians who arguably would benefit from reading works in philosophy rarely do so -- books by Daniel Dennett and John Searle excepted -- and even philosophers of mathematics appear to read little contemporary work on mathematics -- books by Roger Penrose excepted. As Thomas Kuhn wrote in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, ". . . normal science usually holds creative philosophy at arm's length, and probably for good reasons." Kuhn goes on to describe those "probable good reasons" -- in essence, to make progress in science it is generally better to ignore the potentially distracting meta-scientific questions that so interest the philosopher" -Keith Devlin, Dean of Science at Saint Mary's College of California and a Senior Researcher at Stanford University
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2014
Max Tegmark, in his book Our Mathematical Universe, put forward his Philosophy Of Physics, called Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which is that Reality IS itself a mathematical structure.

In response to those who would reject this, on the basis that "our universe is [..] made of stuff perfectly described by a mathematical structure, but which has other properties that aren't described by it", ......he ironically argues that "scientific theories must have observable effects", and that since "those additional [other properties] that would make our universe nonmathematical would by definition have no observable effects, rendering them 100% unscientific."

....
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2014
What exactly are you arguing here, noum? Why is this ironic? Looks logical to me. Apparently you don't "believe in" logic.

Ghost, agreed. The philosophers lost their minds after Derrida invented deconstruction, and started claiming science is no different than religion. I don't pay any attention to them any more.

Deconstruct deconstructionism.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2014
....continued...

He has it quite backwards; Observation itself is necessarily contingent upon epistemic conditions, and that is what delimits Phenomenal Reality from an Independent Objective Reality. It's not that there are other properties not describable by mathematics, but rather the act of observation itself, the interface between mind and reality, necessarily limits science to the phenomenal realm.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2014
Doesn't matter to me. I'm not all that impressed with the MWI in the first place. [..]
And I'm just trying to figure out what physics you accept. After what I've seen you reject, I think it's reasonable to question that.


Five years ago, in this thread myself and independently another poster, Hyperion, attempts to explain our problem with MWI.

Ironically to your and Ghosts arguments, what I accept is an Operational pov to physics, i.e. the approach of the Copenhagen Interpretation implicit in Heisenberg's non-intuitive matrix mechanics,... to regard the mathematical machinery as simply a means of linking observables in order to make predictions, ....and no more than that.

....
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2014
....

Putting forth Interpretations, over and above the theory itself, imply some intuitive dissatisfaction with what the theory is saying about reality or that the theory is incomplete on that account, and a desire to have an understanding about reality that is not made implicit in the mathematical theory itself.

However, the more we gain predictive knowledge, the more we lose intuitive understanding. The wave-function is not a physical entity, it is just a means of making predictions; it's operational collapse was never a problem with the theory.

What exactly are you arguing here, noum? Why is this ironic? Looks logical to me. Apparently you don't "believe in" logic.


"...." means, more to come, so don't jump to conclusions until you read the rest of the point. I'm responding to Ghosts response to my quoted comment.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2014
He has it quite backwards; Observation itself is necessarily contingent upon epistemic conditions
LOL

Noum thinks observations with instrumentation are false.

Ironically to your and Ghosts arguments, what I accept is an Operational pov to physics, i.e. the approach of the Copenhagen Interpretation
There are lots of other interpretations that don't have collapse. You might want to check out my favorite, the Consistent Histories interpretation.

Putting forth Interpretations, over and above the theory itself, imply some intuitive dissatisfaction with what the theory is saying about reality
Not really. It just says we aren't equipped to directly see quantum behavior, and since we encounter classical behavior all the time we need an interpretation to understand it. It's about the limits of human sensory apparatus, not some basic flaw in all of physics like you make it out to be.

contd
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2014
However, the more we gain predictive knowledge, the more we lose intuitive understanding. The wave-function is not a physical entity, it is just a means of making predictions; it's operational collapse was never a problem with the theory.
See? Tolja you were stuck on collapse.

What exactly are you arguing here, noum?
This remains unanswered.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2014
Putting forth Interpretations, over and above the theory itself, imply some intuitive dissatisfaction with what the theory is saying about reality


Not really. It just says we aren't equipped to directly see quantum behavior, and since we encounter classical behavior all the time we need an interpretation to understand it.


Interpretations do not allow one to understand beyond the theory itself, for the reasons you admitted,... "That's the thing about interpretations; no one has found a way to prove any of them wrong."

not some basic flaw in all of physics like you make it out to be.


I never said that, nor do I believe such non-sense. Complete invented rubbish.

He has it quite backwards; Observation itself is necessarily contingent upon epistemic conditions


LOL

Noum thinks observations with instrumentation are false.


I never said anything remotely like this. Your blatant dishonesty ended this discussion.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2014
I'm not bothering with your lawyering, noum.

If you want to talk talk science. Stop all the BS.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2014
And you still haven't told us what you're arguing, exactly.

Typical philosopher posing as a physicist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2014
Observation itself is necessarily contingent upon epistemic conditions
Epistemology is an artifice-ial concept. It is a fraud perpetrated by priests and philos to generate interest and income.
and that is what delimits Phenomenal Reality from an Independent Objective Reality
Translation: wokkawokkawokka... woo woo.
It's not that there are other properties not describable by mathematics, but rather the act of observation itself, the interface between mind and reality, necessarily limits science to the phenomenal realm
No, its because the 'phenomenal realm' is ALL THERE IS.

You have yet to give a concrete example of something metaphysical. Provide an example of something which we know exists but which we cannot observe in one way or another. IOW something we know exists but have no evidence of its existence.

I want a noun.

And it has to be something which by its nature can NEVER be observed. I assume science can never devise methods of observing the unobservable.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2014
You claimed observation is useless, noum. That wasn't very smart. I quoted it even, and you're still denying. Good luck with that.

Only a clueless philosopher posing as a physicist would do that. You're lawyering again, noum.

Since we seem to be stuck on philosophy, I'll point out that epistemology needs to be deconstructed.

:D
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2014
Ghost, an additional argument along the same lines as your "noun" is that we've managed to detect real thoughts with an fMRI, indicating thoughts, too, are real physical phenomena. This obviates a lot of philosophical handwaving about "noumena vs. phenomena" that led to the deconstruction debacle, and the Sokal Affair. Philosophers usually react violently when I mention Sokal, and I believe this person may be trying to turn this against physics. It's a lost cause; deconstruction discredited the philosophers for this generation, at least. They may not ever recover until they figure out how to get rid of Derrida, which the physicists did by proving philosophers don't know physics in the Sokal Affair.

Meanwhile, 5 stars from me for your "noun" comment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2014
"In this work, [Dan] Dennett's interest in the ability of evolution to explain some of the content-producing features of consciousness is already apparent, and this has since become an integral part of his program. He defends a theory known by some as Neural Darwinism. He also presents an argument against qualia; he argues that the concept is so confused that it cannot be put to any use or understood in any non-contradictory way, and therefore does not constitute a valid refutation of physicalism."

-Nou has to provide an example of something which is irrefutably beyond inquiry; not only now, but forever. Meanwhile science continues to convert the metaphysical to the physical every day, much to the dismay of priests and philos alike, and we might suspect that one day it will evaporate altogether, to the sound of no hands clapping.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2014
I won't bother uprating you any more, Ghost.

Haters suck.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
It is pointless to have an discussion with one who's effort is not in attempting to understand anothers comments, but rather in deliberately inventing false interpretations of those comments.

It is one thing to ask for clarifications, it is another to invent accusations.

False accusations from you,....

you claimed, right there in black and white, that it doesn't... implying it should or could.


some basic flaw in all of physics like you make it out to be.


Noum thinks observations with instrumentation are false.


How about the action principle? You OK with that?


Are you seriously suggesting that Lagrangians and their progeny, Hamiltonians, are incorrect?


The SM is not "a theory;" it's a whole collection of them.


Here's a mystery: how come all philosophers hate string physics?


And just like when you implied decoherence is "just a theory."


You claimed observation is useless
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2014
@Ghost, I may respond when I have more time, however, as I've stated many times, 1) I have no interest in debating whether 'philosophy of physics' is valid field of study 2) I have no interest in debating whether philosophy in any way could replace a mathematical theory, as I don't even believe that myself, 3) I have no interest in debating whether metaphysics exists, as my own arguments are design to LIMIT physics to non-metaphysics, and have stated along with Kant, that "metaphysics can not be a source of knowledge", 4) I have no intereet in debating the internet, 5) I have no interest in engaging in link wars. 6) I have no interest in debating philosophy in general, especially non-physics related, to which many of your anti-philo quotes refer.

I too can supply quotes from physicists who disagree with the quotes you provide, and who have even written on philosophy of physics,.... from d'Espagnat, to Omnes, to Heisenberg to Schrodinger, to Mach, to, etc etc
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2014
... so what then is the point except a redundant quote war. Every physicist has a philosophical position,... whether it be Positivism or Realism. This philosophical position stems from an interpretation of what mathematical theories are telling one about reality. It has as a matter of fact guided physicists. You even quoted Hawking as being anti-philo and I responded by supply a quote from him stating that he considers himself a Positivist. Ironically, that is MY position, that the point of a theory is to link observables to make predictions, not to give an explanation of reality independent from the observer, NOT to tell you that it must mean there are many-worlds or the wave-function is a thing, ...

@DaSchnieb, even in the CO2 thread you mentioned that 'more water is needed to process the extra CO2',.... then turned around and accussed me of stating that when I questioned you. You either regard posting as a jerry-springer sport, or you put little effort in reading.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2014
OTOH, it's also true that bringing this level of detail is an effort to obfuscate. Which is typical of what I've seen from you so far.


Even when I mention facts, not disputed by you, you Accuse me of untoward motives,... when I merely wanted to point out that the notion of 'attaching another mathematical space' (dimension) to each (space-time) point, ...as in tangent space (and it's duel space, cotangent) to each point of the psuedo-Riemannian manifold,.... was already implicit in the mathematical structure of differential geometry,... before GR itself made use of it.

You're not honest enough nor interested enough in the topic at hand to continue. End.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2014
every physicist has a philo position positivism or realism
No, these are labels assigned by you philos in the shameless attempt to own science. To scientists they are irrelevant. They play no part in their thought processes. They provide no assistance in designing experiments or analysing data.
to limit physics to non-metaphysics... limits science to the phenomenal realm
-So there is something other than physics. WHAT IS IT? I need an example. Your argument of limited physics collapses unless you can provide an example of what it is not.

This is called falsification.
quote wars
Your sources are routinely easy to discount. They illuminate the origin of your arguments as rooted in theism.
Haters suck
You bet I hate religion. It is ruining the world and I will continue to rail against it.

I also hate its stunted evil twin philosophy as both are rooted in deception. They are parasites. They thrive on keeping people ignorant and confused.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2014
wont bother updating you anymore
-But this begs the question; are you not able to separate the quality of the facts being presented from their source? Facts speak for themselves. This is the basis of science. Only philos and religionists will tend to judge credibility on the source, another example of their poisonous influence on society.

"Religion poisons everything." -hitchens

But really, who cares if you uprate me or not?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
"I'm a positivist. ... I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is." - Stephen Hawking
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
"Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them. In philosophy, that belief is called realism.

[...] one's concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver. That viewpoint, with various subtle differences, goes by names such as antirealism, instrumentalism or idealism. According to those doctrines, the world we know is constructed by the human mind employing sensory data as its raw material and is shaped by the interpretive structure of our brains. This viewpoint may be hard to accept, but it's not difficult to understand....

There is no way to remove the observer.... us.... from our perception of the world." - Stephen Hawking
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
,... this means that 1) if our knowledge of reality has a component that is mind dependent, and 2) but yet there IS an Objective Reality, then it follows by logic that 3) "Phenomenal Reality" (the realm of physics) can be differentiated from Noumenal Reality (metaphysics).

This is NOT to state a belief in nor to promote metaphysics,..... but rather is a statement of the limits of valid science.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
When asked "Is it possible to do theoretical physics and not have philosophical thoughts?",.... Leonard Susskind replied,....

"Most great physicists have had a fairly strong philosophical side. My friend Dick Feynman hated philosophy and hated philosophers, but I knew him well, and there was a deep philosophical side to him. The problems that you choose to think about are conditioned by your philosophical predispositions."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2014
"I'm a positivist. ... I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is." - Stephen Hawking
Hawking is as much a politiker and book-seller as he is a scientist, just like einstein was. Your -ism does not inform his work nor the work of other scientists. It is rather the other way around for followers of wagon trains.
yet there IS an Objective Reality
Non sequitor. Declaring that there is a component not yet found does not make it unfindable.
Noumenal Reality (metaphysics).
-which is -? GIVE AN EXAMPLE. Again - declaring that there are things which arent discernable DOES NOT mean they wont be discernable in the future. By scientists.

The CURRENT theory of uncertainty may be superceded. There is nothing to indicate that it cant be. The article above indicates how scientists are whittling away at it all the time. Your philo crap depends on it being the final word.

Do you have some proof that it is? FALSIFY.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2014
deep philosophical side to him
HIS type of philosophy is not YOUR type of philosophy.

Yours: "a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology "

His: "a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live... the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group "

They are NOT related. And your continued insistence that they are is OFFENSIVE.

You imply that personal philosophy is a choice on how to live but science is telling us that there is very little about our behavior that we are free to choose. More metaphysical evaporation.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2014
wont bother updating you anymore
-But this begs the question; are you not able to separate the quality of the facts being presented from their source?
Has nothing to do with the source, Ghost. Has to do with your behavior.

Worth mentioning I'm an atheist, and the son and grandson of atheists.

Noum, you're lawyering again.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2014
Oh and BTW that was "uprating," not updating.
I Have Questions
5 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2014
Don't forget Kant and falling trees...
http://blog.oup.c...quantum/


If a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is yes it makes a sound, but without an observer it has no meaning.

Observing an electron changes the electron because you need to shoot something at it that is reflected back to the observer in order to see it, typically photons are used.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
"I'm a positivist. ... I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is." - Stephen Hawking

Hawking is as much a politiker and book-seller as he is a scientist, just like einstein was.
Actually, you're not entitled to decide the integrity and sincerity Hawking's or Einstein's statements.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
"Phenomenal Reality" (the realm of physics) can be differentiated from Noumenal Reality (metaphysics).


-which is -? GIVE AN EXAMPLE. Again - declaring that there are things which arent discernable DOES NOT mean they wont be discernable in the future.


I will give you an example of something that evidently is not discernable to you nor will be discernible to you in the future,...... It is this, the point that I have made multiple times in this thread that you fail to grasp,.... It's not about claiming things unknowable, but rather establishing the limits of valid scientific knowledge.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
"I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is." - Stephen Hawking

"There is no way to remove the observer.... us.... from our perception of the world." - Stephen Hawking

Think about what Hawking is saying here. He is saying we can't quite gain a knowledge of independent reality. This is a statement of epistemology, it is one that delimits valid scientific knowledge.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet, physicist.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014

I linked to d'Espagnet's book somewhere above, "On Physics and Philosophy", where he outlines his 'Veiled Reality', which is similar to Kant Noumenon. In fact d'Espagnet mentions Kant many times in the book.

Roland Omnes liked the book as well,.. saying,....

"surely the most complete book to have been written on this subject and one likely to last a long time…" - Roland Omnes, ...a physicists who writes on philosophy of physics as well.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
HIS type of philosophy is not YOUR type of philosophy.

Yours: "a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology "

His: "a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live... the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group "

They are NOT related. And your continued insistence that they are is OFFENSIVE.

You imply that personal philosophy is a choice on how to live.....


You're not entitled to speak for me. I have zero interest in aesthetics, ethics, or metaphysics, ....and as you have been told many times, I am an atheist,.... or more accurately an agnostic.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2014
...we've managed to detect real thoughts with an fMRI, indicating thoughts, too, are real physical phenomena. This obviates a lot of philosophical handwaving about "noumena vs. phenomena"


You continue to invent things never claimed by me. Did you actually think that I thought thoughts are not physically based?

You don't appear to even know what Noumenon in contrast to Phenomenon even means by making this statement.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2014
EDIT...{

"I'm a positivist. ... I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is." - Stephen Hawking


Hawking is as much a politiker and book-seller as he is a scientist, just like einstein was.

Actually, you're not entitled to decide the integrity and sincerity Hawking's or Einstein's statements.

}
NOM
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2014
Noum, you're lawyering again.
... and arguing with himself apparently.

That's good, maybe he'll start down-voting himself now with his sock-puppet army.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2014
Noum, you're lawyering again.
... and arguing with himself apparently.

That's good, maybe he'll start down-voting himself now with his sock-puppet army.


Do you deny 1-rating everyone of my posts irrespective of content, and at the same time disabling your own post history page?

Yes, I cancel your childish and invalid troll rating, and will continue to do so. Not smart enough to make counter arguments? Does clicking on the 1 make you feel better?

NOM
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2014
Apparently not as good as uprating yourself does for you.

Do you change hands at 99?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2014
The CURRENT theory of uncertainty may be superceded. There is nothing to indicate that it cant be. The article above indicates how scientists are whittling away at it all the time. - Ghost


The uncertainty principal remains as valid now as it did when it was proposed. In fact the inequality expresses a unavoidable property of quantum systems, and it is hard coded in the mathematical structure of qm. It is not something to be overcome by a clever new way of performing measurements......

Observing an electron changes the electron because you need to shoot something at it that is reflected back to the observer in order to see it, typically photons are used. - Questions


That effect is known as the observer effect, and is was already a classical measure effect. The uncertainty relation is more profound and specific to quantum mechanics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2014
you're not entitled to decide the integrity and sincerity Hawking's or Einstein's statements
Pish tosh. Im just as entitled as you.
Think about what Hawking is saying here
Think about what hawking is saying here:

"Philosophy is dead."

-Your quote is from a 1994 debate with the mystic penrose. The above quote is from 2004. Apparently he got fed up as krauss, feynman, and many others have, in the interim.
You continue to invent things never claimed by me
-And you keep using word spaghetti to lie about things you said.
You're not entitled to speak for me
Listen asshole you made the claim that feynman has a 'philosophy'. It is NOT your classically-derived kantian/d'escargotian/academic/epistemological bullshit.
It's not about claiming things unknowable, but rather establishing the limits of valid scientific knowledge
You cant claim there is something beyond the limits of knowledge unless you can provide some indication that there is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2014
The uncertainty principal remains as valid now as it did when it was proposed
So what? What makes YOU think that it is the final or most complete description of reality? And what makes you think that you can discern limits just by talking about them? This is why scientists laugh at you.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2014
Do you deny 1-rating everyone of my posts irrespective of content
Yes. I downrate your posts for content (or, more commonly, lack thereof).
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2014
Do you deny 1-rating everyone of my posts irrespective of content
Yes. I downrate your posts for content (or, more commonly, lack thereof).

If that were so, and you were not just a fraud and a mindless-gang-troll-rater, then you could explain why you rated my previous, purely factual post, a one.

The uncertainty principal remains as valid now as it did when it was proposed. In fact the inequality expresses a unavoidable property of quantum systems, and it is hard coded in the mathematical structure of qm. It is not something to be overcome by a clever new way of performing measurements......


So what? What makes YOU think that it is the final or most complete description of reality?


I never said it was the "most complete description of reality", in fact it can't be if the presumption of a TOE is even valid. Why are you changing the subject. QED is valid to six decimal places, and the uncertainty principal underlies that.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2014
Do you deny 1-rating everyone of my posts irrespective of content
Yes. I downrate your posts for content (or, more commonly, lack thereof).
If that were so, and you were not just a fraud and a mindless-gang-troll-rater, then you could explain why you rated my previous, purely factual post, a one.
What "previous, purely factual post?"

Quote it.

You're lawyering again, noum.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2014
-Your quote is from a 1994 debate with the mystic penrose. The above quote is from 2004. Apparently he got fed up as krauss, feynman, and many others have, in the interim.


Yet he had a Ph.D in physics for 30 years by then and had made major contributions. I posted quotes made by physicists. This refutes you. That it was in 1994 or he drove a red car then, are irrelevancies invented to obscure the embarrassment you feel.

Ohh, and calling Sir Roger Penrose, a preeminent mathematical physicist, pure mathematician, and Philosopher of Science,... a "mystic",... is more evidence that you are a fraud and watch too much Jerry-Springer.

You continue to invent things never claimed by me

-And you keep using word spaghetti.....

The spaghetti was quite straight before it was put on your plate.

You're not entitled to speak for me

Listen asshole you made the claim that feynman has a 'philosophy'.

Wrong. That was the physicist, Susskind.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2014
Do you deny 1-rating everyone of my posts irrespective of content
Yes. I downrate your posts for content (or, more commonly, lack thereof).
If that were so, and you were not just a fraud and a mindless-gang-troll-rater, then you could explain why you rated my previous, purely factual post, a one.
What "previous, purely factual post?"

Quote it.


No. You google the word "previous", and stop looking for escape routes.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2014
No quote means you're lying, noum.
NOM
3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2014
You can tell when he's lying. Either his lips are moving, or he's typing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2014
"Quantum mysticism is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, or mystical world-views to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations... In the 1920s, with the inception of early quantum theory, Wolfgang Pauli took an active interest in quantum mysticism... Physicist Roger Penrose wrote in the Shadows of the Mind that consciousness may be a quantum phenomenon. The idea was cuttingly criticised by Stephen Hawking; a summary of his criticisms was added to Penrose's book. Penrose posited that quantum forces affected neural processing via microtubules in his Orchestrated objective reduction model that he developed in collaboration with the anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff."
http://en.wikiped...ysticism

-Seems I know more about most everything than you. Including the religious roots of your own philosophical beliefs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2014
Yet he had a Ph.D in physics for 30 years... This refutes you
No. Hawking said in 2004 that philosophy is dead. Are you saying that his opinions cant have matured in a decade?

"... people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality?

"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

-He seems pretty clear to me.
I never said it was the "most complete description of reality"... QED is valid to six decimal places, and the uncertainty principal underlies that
Youre using it to set ultimate and eternal limits on what we can know.

One consistent thing about scientific theories is that they tend to be superceded. So how does your meta become physical?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
Quantum mysticism is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, or mystical world-views to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations [.....] Physicist Roger Penrose wrote in the Shadows of the Mind that consciousness may be a quantum phenomenon.


Factually incorrect.

Penrose proposed a direction for studying how the appearance of consciousness manifests on a physical basis, ....with quantum mechanical effects.

This had ZERO to do with mysticism.

I base this statement on having actually read "Shadows of the Mind",... whereas you have based yours on mining the wiki for slander, which can be generated by any half-wit.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
Seems I know more about most everything than you. Including the religious roots of your own philosophical beliefs.


You know how to make things up, that is for sure.

You have been told countless times that I am an atheist,... and that I reject metaphysics in science. I have NO religious philosophical beliefs.

I focus on the conceptual, philosophical, and mathematical foundations of physics. I don't focus on a generalization of anti-this or anti-that,.. because it is vacuous.

It is better to argue WHY a particular philosophical point is wrong or pointless, than to attempt to claim that ALL of philosophy is non-sense.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
,...especially when you hate philosophy o much that you could not possibly have studied it dispassionately and thus unbiased. Have you read 'A Critique of Pure Reason' yet as I asked you to three years ago?

Yet he had a Ph.D in physics for 30 years... This refutes you

No. Hawking said in 2004 that philosophy is dead. Are you saying that his opinions cant have matured in a decade?


You still don't understand. It does NOT matter that his opinions matured,.. (even if they in fact did mature, which I doubt, because both quotes are not saying the same thing. Hawking is STILL as positivist.).

The point is that that preeminent physicist with 30 years experience, had made that statement,... the same as d'Espagnat and myself,... that the basis of Realism, i.e. knowledge of an independent reality,... is scientifically unfounded.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
"...Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."


I agree with this statement of his.

In fact, by Hawking stating "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science",.... he is categorically NOT speaking of Philosophy of Physics, because by definition Philosophy of Physics keeps up with modern developments in physics.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2014
noum, until philo-sophists reject Derrida, philo-sophistry is dead.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
...QED is valid to six decimal places, and the uncertainty principal underlies that.


[You're] using it to set ultimate and eternal limits on what we can know

Because of an unavoidable and eternal constant,... the act of acquiring knowledge of reality is to conceptualize it, and to conceptualize and interact with it, is to make that knowledge depended upon mind.

This is what Hawking and d'Espagnat, and Bohr, and Heisenberg, and Pais, and etc,... are saying.

As we gain predictive knowledge we lose intuitive understanding of an independent reality. When Feynman said "no one understands it [QM]" ....this is what he meant.

My philosophical position is anti-Realism,... i.e. Positivism through instrumentalism. This implies a Rejection of metaphysical speculation in science, ....which is to say the rejection of knowledge claimed of reality independent of observations.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2014
EDIT:

...QED is valid to six decimal places, and the uncertainty principal underlies that.


[You're] using it to set ultimate and eternal limits on what we can know


Because of an unavoidable and eternal constant,.........
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2014
So let me ask you mr pissant, what is the difference between incorrect and 'factually incorrect' besides the latter being a fashion statement, a philo idiom? This is why scientists laugh at you.

You didn't read the reference. You didn't learn why penrose is considered a mystic.
he is categorically not speaking of philosophy of physics
Ahaaahaaaa I guess you missed the "particularly physics" part? Are you dense or what??
no religious
Your 'man can't know everything' mantra is derived from philos with religious agendas. This has been shown to you time and again.

Physics philos keep up with physics like any other groupie. They don't contribute. Their efforts are essentially along the lines of apologists and 'I knew that would happen'.

They knew that science was ruining their traditional spiel so they very shamelessly invented 'philosophy of science and physics'. Obviously. And how greasy is that?

They keep up like the whores who follow the wagon trains.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
what is the difference between incorrect and 'factually incorrect'


One could be wrong in one's analysis of the facts, or ...one could be wrong in the facts themselves.

You didn't read the reference. You didn't learn why penrose is considered a mystic.


Yes, I did. Did you? The only mention of Penrose is the 2nd paragraph under the headline History, and does not associate Penrose with anything mystical. In fact it clearly says that Penrose's quantum foundation for consciousness idea is based on a physical argument, so that it is in principal scientifically refutable.

Who ever thought it appropriate to include Penrose name in that wiki page to begin with, clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

So again you are 'factually wrong'.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
by Hawking stating "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science [, particularly physics ]",.... he is categorically NOT speaking of Philosophy of Physics, because by definition Philosophy of Physics keeps up with modern developments in physics.

Ahaaahaaaa I guess you missed the "particularly physics" part? Are you dense or what??


How old are you with these insults?

I edited the above to include the ", particularly physics" bit for you. It makes no difference at all.

The entire mode of operation and definition of 'Philosophy of Physics', ....which I have proved is pursued by physicists as well, .....is to 'keep up with modern developments in physics'. Duh..

So defacto Hawking could not have been speaking of 'Philosophy of Physics', but an entirely alternative means of acquiring knowledge as in general philosophy,.. to which I would agree with him.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
Your 'man can't know everything' mantra is derived from philos with religious agendas. This has been shown to you time and again.


No, it's to limit science to inductive reasoning and the scientific method, so that statements that are empirically unfounded are not made,.. i.e Everett's many-worlds, or Tegmarks mathematical universe, etc.

Physics philos keep up with physics like any other groupie. They don't contribute. Their efforts are essentially along the lines of apologists and 'I knew that would happen'.

They knew that science was ruining their traditional spiel so they very shamelessly invented 'philosophy of science and physics'. Obviously. And how greasy is that?

They keep up like the whores who follow the wagon trains.


Take being defeated with some dignity. When you're finished with your baseless Jerry-Springer rant, try actually studying the subject, before rejecting it. For example, the d'Espagnat book above is about quantum mechanics.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2014
Sean Carroll, who wrote a nice textbook and free online pdf on GR,... doesn't agree with you either,.... "....the practice of philosophy of physics is continuous with the practice of physics itself. Many of the best philosophers of physics were trained as physicists...."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2014
If you had wanted to know more about quantum mysticism you would have seen penrose mentioned a lot. Here's a book on the subject.

"Arguably some purveyors of quantum mysticism are entirely ignorant of quantum physics such as Deepak Chopra and the writers of the film What the Bleep..., while others may understand quantum physics but draw confused philosophical conclusions from it. Although Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose shared with Stephen Hawking the Wolf Prize for Physics in 1988, Hawking has vigorously opposed the attempts of Penrose to develop an explanation for consciousness from quantum physics (as has also noted physicist and atheist Victor Stenger and philosopher Daniel Dennett). However, Penrose does not engage in the massive distortions of modern physics that are found in Chopra and others."

-'Consciousness' like the soul or metaphysics, is an unscientific term as many have asserted. And any attempts to define it scientifically can justifiably be labeled woo woo.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2014
"....Penrose does not engage in the massive distortions of modern physics...."


Your own quote substantiates my claim that Penrose DID NOT engage in mysticism or metaphysics, so your original claim in BS and it is OFFENSIVE that you would imply that of Penrose.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2014
'Consciousness' like the soul or metaphysics, is an unscientific term as many have asserted.


There is nothing metaphysical or mystical about 'consciousness'. It's simply a term denoting awareness. It is a real phenomenon that everyone experiences. In fact there is no empirical evidence more ubiquitous that consciousness!

Of course it's not a "scientific term", ... as no one knows how the mind functions to cause that experience, and unexplained phenomena are not scientific terms, they are unexplained phenomena.

Penrose very well may be wrong w.r.t. the mind functioning at the quantum level, however 1) this does not imply he is seeking an explanation not grounded in accepted physical theories,.. and 3) this does not imply that Hawking or Stenger or Dennett, know any better.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2014
Sean Carroll,... doesn't agree with you either
@nou
actually, that is misleading. if you will see the part Carroll writes about philo in your own link
Nobody denies that the vast majority of physics gets by perfectly well without any input from philosophy at all. ("We need to calculate this loop integral! Quick, get me a philosopher!")
you will see that he/everyone admits that the vast majority of physics gets along just fine without philo's (and he even goes on to state biologists and more as well)

Carroll's argument is fairly specific in that he says philo's are helpful to the "foundation" questions
And just because one physicists believes this doesn't mean they ALL do, either
again, refer to his own words above: the vast majority do NOT need/use philosophy @ work

I agree with Carroll but only to a certain point:
the WHY of the arrow of time, etc (foundation questions) are a PART of science
not JUST the realm of philosophy
philo's aren't needed, really
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2014
@Stumpy,

I have not maintain that mathematical theories are developed on account of philosophy. Please read the comments critically or don't respond at all.

Carroll's argument is fairly specific in that he says philo's are helpful to the "foundation" questions


Yes, this is only what I have said, the conceptual foundations and interpretations of theory.

just because one physicists believes this doesn't mean they ALL do


I have not said otherwise, stop making BS up. In fact it was Your friend Otto puts forth the Absolutist claim that 'there is no philosophy of physics' and that 'philosophers are unqualified to speak of physics', etc.

YOU troll this sites with 'where's the evidence, ....where's the proof',... but when I supply abundant evidence that some physicists concern themselves with philosophy, which refutes Otto's absolutist claims... you ignore that evidence. Are you a fraud?

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2014
@Stumpy,.. here is a typical exchange with Otto,...

If one writes on 'philosophy of physics', which even physicists do, they are discussing interpretations of physical theories,... they are not developing those theories nor testing them.- Noumenon


There is no 'philosophy of physics'. - GhostofOtto


Tell that to Heisenberg, d'Espagant, Penrose, Schrodinger, Omnes, Bohr, Pauli, J. Jeans, David Albert, Tegmark, E. Mach, Einstein, Henri Poincare, Eugene Wigner, David Bohm, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, etc, etc... all physicists who have either written on or have had an interest in the subject.


If you think Otto is being reasonable here you are no better than he is. Ignorance of the highest order is to reject something you know little about.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2014
Please read the comments critically or don't respond at all.
@nou
if you don't like it, you can always just click on the ignore user button and post to yourself here
it's not like you agree with many people anyway...
If you think Otto is being reasonable here you are no better than he is
so you think critical arguments require denigration?

i might not agree with some of Otto's tactics above, but i agree with what he is trying to get you to understand
if you don't like that, you can take a flying leap and click the ignore user

IOW - deal with it and shut up
my argument was valid, tempered and reasonable and you just don't like it
and though i can understand Carroll's argument, i don't agree with it either, because the asking of "why" is not "just" some philo argument, or the realm of philo's

WHY is the basics/fundamentals of science which drives scientists forward
which is my argument

and Otto is saying pretty much the same thing too
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2014
I have not maintain that mathematical theories are developed on account of philosophy.
@nou
and i dont see anywhere above where i suggested this, do you?
can you link where i said this?
no
why?
because you are a philo and you double think everything to death and assume things not written... because that is how philo's think
stop making BS up
stop inferring that physicists need philo's or that philo's have some corner on the market with regard to fundamental questions of how things work, or "why"
you ignore that evidence. Are you a fraud?
i ignored nothing
i even used your own link to post (which would mean that i read it and was aware of it, meaning i did not ignore it, right?) you would think even a philo would have caught that

i simply don't agree with you
and even though some physicists agree philo is needed, i don't agree with that either
mostly because physics is about defining reality, and thus must address the foundation questions
no philo's needed

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2014
This ignore/mute button is great!

Bye noum.
smd
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2014
WHY is the basics/fundamentals of science which drives scientists forward
which is my argument

Quite right - which is why (no pun intended) I posted David Hilbert's wonderful quote earlier in this tortured exchange: "We must know, we will know."
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
This ignore/mute button is great!

Bye noum.


I expect this will mean you will stop troll rating me.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
stop inferring that physicists need philo's or that philo's have some corner on the market with regard to fundamental questions of how things work, or "why"

Where have I done this? It's no wonder this thread is as long as it is.

I have stated explicitly that Physicists are responsible for developing mathematical theories and that Physicists reflect on interpretations of theory, which is philo of phys. Also, that epistemology has everything to do with acquiring knowledge, so it's abundantly obvious that it is relevent, and have provided quotes from Einstein saying as much. I have backed all that up with evidence.

The reason these threads get so convoluted is because of blantly false accusations of what another poster stated. I listed several attributed to DaSchnieb alone.

Another reason is because of interjecting irrelevancies and deliberately false facts,... above Otto did this wrt Penrose and smd wrt d'Espagnat & 'quantum consciousness'.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
..... Otto whats to argue In General, that philosophy is invalid;... and trolls after me, but never actually challenges me on a Specific Substantive Point. You (Stumpy) know him personally, right?, so are not likely ever to be unbiased wrt him, so why even interject your self? Another lie is that Noumenon is a philosopher,... I happen to study more physics than philosophy,.... i'm simply not so narrow minded as to reject an entire field of study out of hand.

"We must know, we will know."


I of course share this faith in science. However, as d'Espagnat AND Hawking has implied in the above quotes,.... when the scientific evidence does not support knowledge of an Objective Independent Reality, then there is no empiracal basis for chasing such metaphysical speculation. QM is as complete as it can be in principal, imo.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
it's not like you agree with many people anyway...


Had I regarded Phys.Org as another Facebook or cared about it's Facebook'esque comment rating system, I would have taken on a false persona of being a naive PC liberal. Instead I get clowns like NOM and vietvet (and probably the motivation behind DaSchnieb attacks) trolling after me while NEVER offering counter opinions.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
You (Stumpy) know him personally, right?
@nou
i know otto? no
so are not likely ever to be unbiased wrt him, so why even interject your self?
1- i don't know him
2- i disagree with your suggestions about philosophy
3- free comment section, so it is open to all posters, right? are you going to go off on an rc tangent with that? what?
i "interjected" because i have an opinion that was relevant to your post and that is what the comment section is about
i also had supporting evidence that i linked and used, which supports my POV

and if you are not a philo, then why keep posting about philosophy?
you do this a lot, and it is disruptive, especially with the fallout from other posters who don't agree

science tends to he more concrete than philo, and offers evidence
philo is almost completely subjective and can be true and untrue simultaneously depending on perspective

THAT is why i dislike philo disruption on a science site
it is opinion, not science

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
I get clowns like NOM and vietvet (and probably the motivation behind DaSchnieb attacks) trolling after me while NEVER offering counter opinions
@nou
and this is a philo stance
the voting mechanism is a simple means of agreeing or disagreeing with a poster, or any stars in between... it is not designed to be a precursor to comment, nor is it stated that if you vote, you must reply as well
some people dislike philosophy on a science site because it offers only subjective opinion that can be altered with a changed perspective, which is not science

and that is another reason that i "interjected" above... as to your question
Where have I done this?
are you not reading your own posts? your posts above suggest that philo's are a necessary part of science
I focus on the conceptual, philosophical, and mathematical foundations of physics
IOW -you are a philo with knowledge of science
stick to the science and leave out the philo double-talk then

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.