Quantum reality and Idealism

[Iacchus]

Its not just a matter of opinion, its something they can back up. With your ideas, you cannot back them up.

Even so, why should I be "forced" to eat sauerkraut when I prefer to eat steak? Maybe I'm looking for something more fulfilling than what science offers?

 

[Iacchus]

These distributors have also not proven anything in repeatable double blind tests. There is no evidence that your "recovery" was not simply placebo or timing. Again, no different than tapping a computer screen.

All except for the fact that I was there, I lived through the experience, and that's good enough for me.

 

[RussDill]

Even so, why should I be "forced" to eat sauerkraut when I prefer to eat steak? Maybe I'm looking for something more fulfilling than what science offers?

Then you are simply accepting whatever sounds good as truth. You'd rather believe lie, than attempt to find truth.

 

[RussDill]

All except for the fact that I was there, I lived through the experience, and that's good enough for me.

Then you are simply accepting whatever sounds good as truth. You'd rather believe lie, than attempt to find truth.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

They kill the purity of philosophy in the process.

Excuse me, but.......

 

[Iacchus]

Then you are simply accepting whatever sounds good as truth. You'd rather believe lie, than attempt to find truth.

Hey what difference is it going to make anyway if you're going to die? Unless of course there is an afterlife? In which case our acceptance of the truth will have proven useful. Or, in the case with no afterlife, it will have found a "dead-end."

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Re: Re: ANOTHER PHYSICIST'S support for my philosophy.

Given your last "physicist" claimed to have done double slit experiments in which he recorded data from the detectors, got a non-intereference pattern, deleted the data, and the pattern magically changed to an intereference pattern....(This is highly suspect because a), its never been reproduced, b) data is actually not recorded in a double slit experiement, and c) the guy is a con just trying to sell his books)

I bothered to read the paper, and I see a few problems. First, the test is not double blind, the researches who analyze the EEG's (which is already subjective) have knowledge of the experiment conducted, thus provide bias on the data. Second, the two "observers" are in adjacent rooms that are not sound proofed, the second observer would be able to hear the first observers movement and breathing. Third, the experiment has never been repeated (at least according to the paper). Forth, all other quantum experimentation proves the opposite.

Soderqvist1: yes, a third polarizing filter between the screen with two slits, and the last screen can erase the manifest history about which hole the polarized photon has traveled through, and so restore the indeterminate polarization with interference pattern, just as it was before the first polarization filter was there!

John Gribbin describes the experiment in the beginning!
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm

According to the Super String expert Brain Greene (1999), experiments has also been made with an electron in a box, in order to pin down its position, and momentum, but the electron begin to bouncing like crazy when the space decreases, it behaves precisely as it suffer from claustrophobia, that is what we should suspect if Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle is intrinsic in the quantum world! Here is a short excerpt about it, from Brain Greene's The Elegant Universe (1999), Chap 4: Microscopic Weirdness! http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Btw, The Copenhagen Interpretation has also struck a setback according to John Gribbin 's book, Schrodinger 's Kittens (1994), because experiment has been made at the university of Calcutta in India, which has shown that a photon has appeared, or is manifested both as particle and as a wave in the same unit of time, in direct violation of Bohr's Complementary Principle, but it still doesn't violate Consciousness as the collapser of wave function according to Gribbin, though, he is an adhere to Cramer's Transactional Interpretation!

 

[Iacchus]

That is *not* what science means. Science involves the scientific process.

And here are the first two listings in my dictionary:

a) possesion of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance and misunderstanding.

b) knowledge attained through study or practice.

Really, what amazing advances has his reasearch brought? I haven't seen any, its just an unproven philosophy.

I haven't followed Jung that closely. However, I do know he's well respected and celebrated in his field.

Its pretty similar to writing a paper, do you ever have anyone peer review a paper you write to find grammer and continuity mistakes? The more people who review your paper, the less mistakes there will be in the end. Other humans are very helpfull when it comes to verifying any answers we find.

So. And why can't you share your religious experiences with other people as well?

 

[Zero]

Even so, why should I be "forced" to eat sauerkraut when I prefer to eat steak? Maybe I'm looking for something more fulfilling than what science offers?

That's a very democratic view, and I understand why you find that attractive, but it is still wrong. You can choose between eating sauerkraut and steak, or apples and oranges, because they are all food. What you are doing is like choosing between eating sauerkraut and shooting heroin; sure the heroin will make you feel good, and kill your appetite, but it is not fot, and is worse than eating nothing in the long run.

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Re: ANOTHER PHYSICIST'S support for my philosophy.

Soderqvist1: yes, a third polarizing filter between the screen with two slits, and the last screen can erase the manifest history about which hole the polarized photon has traveled through, and so restore the indeterminate polarization with interference pattern, just as it was before the first polarization filter was there!

John Gribbin describes the experiment in the beginning!
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm

According to the Super String expert Brain Greene (1999), experiments has also been made with an electron in a box, in order to pin down its position, and momentum, but the electron begin to bouncing like crazy when the space decreases, it behaves precisely as it suffer from claustrophobia, that is what we should suspect if Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle is intrinsic in the quantum world! Here is a short excerpt about it, from Brain Greene's The Elegant Universe (1999), Chap 4: Microscopic Weirdness! http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html

You have to be very careful what you post around here, chum...Lifegazer will read the part that says "the electron begin to bouncing like crazy when the space decreases, it behaves precisely as it suffer from claustrophobia" and next thing you know he starts a new thread. The title will be something like "Quantum Physics Says Electrons Are Sentient"

 

[Wudang]

I haven't followed Jung that closely. However, I do know he's well respected and celebrated in his field.

Not really - if you mean psychology that is. Discredited metatheoretician. If a therapist quotes Jung at you then walk, do not run, to the nearest exit.

 

[Iacchus]

That's a very democratic view, and I understand why you find that attractive, but it is still wrong. You can choose between eating sauerkraut and steak, or apples and oranges, because they are all food. What you are doing is like choosing between eating sauerkraut and shooting heroin; sure the heroin will make you feel good, and kill your appetite, but it is not fot, and is worse than eating nothing in the long run.

No thanks.

It's like I said four posts above, what is truth if it leads you nowhere?

Hey what difference is it going to make anyway if you're going to die? Unless of course there is an afterlife? In which case our acceptance of the truth will have proven useful. Or, in the case with no afterlife, it will have found a "dead-end."

 

[Iacchus]

Not really - if you mean psychology that is. Discredited metatheoretician. If a therapist quotes Jung at you then walk, do not run, to the nearest exit.

Discredited no doubt by the same cold and lifeless system that suggests there's no such thing as human spirituality.

 

[RussDill]

Hey what difference is it going to make anyway if you're going to die?

Certainly, with the correct answers about our universe, we'll live a lot longer and increase the quality of that life. We can go back to just saying "goddidit" and return to the dark ages if you like though.

Unless of course there is an afterlife? In which case our acceptance of the truth will have proven useful. Or, in the case with no afterlife, it will have found a "dead-end."

If its just something you made up (or something someone else made up a long time ago) then there is no indication of truth. Its just a dead end, why not concern yourself with truth instead of lie. Oh yea, its because the lie feels better.

 

[RussDill]

And here are the first two listings in my dictionary:

a) possesion of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance and misunderstanding.

b) knowledge attained through study or practice.

What do you have, the fischer price my first dictionary?

You might want to read this note from websters:

Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained, accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes, or laws. Pure science is the knowledge of these powers, causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all applications. Both these terms have a similar and special signification when applied to the science of quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact science is knowledge so systematized that prediction and verification, by measurement, experiment, observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

I haven't followed Jung that closely. However, I do know he's well respected and celebrated in his field.

Well respected in which field? Certainly not by physcologists.

So. And why can't you share your religious experiences with other people as well?

Did I say you couldn't share? I just said that they you can't say you've proved something just because you had a religious experience

 

[RussDill]

Discredited no doubt by the same cold and lifeless system that suggests there's no such thing as human spirituality.

Why is it cold and lifeless to say that there is no evidence for a spirit? You already admitted that you are just believing a lie because it feels good.

 

[Pahansiri]

No thanks.

It's like I said four posts above, what is truth if it leads you nowhere?

Truth.

 

[lifegazer]

"There is a creative entity who chooses to will abstract sensations upon its own intangible awareness. It's obvious."

This isn't reason or deduction lifegazer, its assumtion. Note how you just state it as if its fact rather than try to use reason. Classic lifegazer, insult, and restate your assumptions. Yawn, I think I could make a machine that would do your posting for you, or just hire a neighborhood kid.

Hit an object with a hammer until time freezes over, and it will not feel 'pain' until and unless the object itself creates that abstract experience, upon awareness.
Freeze an object and it will not feel 'cold' until the object itself creates that abstract experience for itself.

Get the picture? It's so bloomin' obvious that an entity creates its own abstract experiences of sensation that you're just exposing the limitations of your intelligence when you respond to me the way you do.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: ANOTHER PHYSICIST'S support for my philosophy.

Soderqvist1: yes, a third polarizing filter between the screen with two slits, and the last screen can erase the manifest history about which hole the polarized photon has traveled through, and so restore the indeterminate polarization with interference pattern, just as it was before the first polarization filter was there!

John Gribbin describes the experiment in the beginning!
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm

This writeup is full of logical falacies. First, the writer seems to infer that physicists only have two interpretations to choose from, the Copenhagen, and Cramer's, which is not true. Cramer's interpretation is interesting, but not necessarily true.

Second, the author claims that in the double sphere thought experiment, that an observer is collapsing the wave function because of their knowledge of the inner sphere, which is nonsense, its the setup of the experiment that is determining the outcome, the probability of what will occur is the same whoever, whatever the observer of the experiment is , even if there is no observer.

I'm not sure what you are trying to show with this link. The experiment you cite is just further proof that we understand QM correctly, as QM does predict the outcome as it happened.

According to the Super String expert Brain Greene (1999), experiments has also been made with an electron in a box, in order to pin down its position, and momentum, but the electron begin to bouncing like crazy when the space decreases, it behaves precisely as it suffer from claustrophobia, that is what we should suspect if Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle is intrinsic in the quantum world! Here is a short excerpt about it, from Brain Greene's The Elegant Universe (1999), Chap 4: Microscopic Weirdness! http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here, as QM makes it clear what happens when the position of a particle is pinned down very closely, its momentum will be indeterminate inversely proportional to how exact its position is.