Reality May be too strange to "uncover"

Holographic Universe or Computer Simulation? Big Bang or God?

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby Gary » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:17 pm

ryguy wrote:Science is far from faith based - although how many people incorrectly take part in it is certainly often faith-based.

Pure science strips away the problems generations have had in discerning reality from hallucinogen-induced visions and dreams.

The fact that you call the "many-world" theory the best one only reflects your own personal biases and beliefs, and not which proposed theory in quantum physics is actually the most legitimate.

By the way - calling any of these "theories" proven is laughable - of course we understand that "proof" in Quantum Physics has another meaning all its own.

-Ry


Ryan, Dr. Paul Davies is right, and it is a simple fact: scientists abandon causality at the bottom, by accepting "laws of physics" based upon faith, not based upon an understanding of their origin.

Quantum theory is proven every time someone successfully uses solid-state electronics, which rely on quantum theory for their operation.

Many worlds is EXACTLY the mathematical prediction given by the quantum theory -- especially if you want to preserve locality -- and desire to obey the laws of physics, since information IS physical. I suggest you read David Deutsch in the book Fabric of Reality.

You really don't have a clue about the fundamental basis of physics, do you? Why do you think that experts, beginning with Einstein and Bohr, have never been able to agree?

In a September 2007 conference[9] David Wallace reports on a proof by Deutsch and himself of the Born Rule starting from Everettian assumptions[10] and this has been reported in the press as support for parallel universes.[11][12]

Or try this for a bit of pop-level infotainment:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fun ... ntum-world
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am


Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:21 pm

Gary wrote:Science IS faith-based: read the NY Times article by physicist Paul Davies:

(snip)
Reading the article might save me from a lot of typing BTW! :-)


Gary,

Reading dictionary definitions may help you avoid being wrong (and casting professor Davies' words in an improper light):

faith - 2. belief that is not based on proof

Science tests theories (and any theory that cannot be tested is not scientific, i.e. not Popper falsifiable). Faith does not require proof/evidence, and NOWHERE in the quote from professor Davies do I see him saying science does not demand evidence or proof. You are, once again, crossing signals. The fact that we cannot explain WHY something is does NOT say that science believes things without testing them for validity.

C'mon Gary. I have been quiet, and have given you the benefit of the doubt in this "ongoing battle" you seem to wish to wage with RU. But when you make statements like this, which are CLEARLY out of context and not supportive of YOUR conclusion, I have to step in and speak my mind.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Gary » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:37 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Gary wrote:Science IS faith-based: read the NY Times article by physicist Paul Davies:

(snip)
Reading the article might save me from a lot of typing BTW! :-)


Gary,

Reading dictionary definitions may help you avoid being wrong (and casting professor Davies' words in an improper light):

faith - 2. belief that is not based on proof

Science tests theories (and any theory that cannot be tested is not scientific, i.e. not Popper falsifiable). Faith does not require proof/evidence, and NOWHERE in the quote from professor Davies do I see him saying science does not demand evidence or proof. You are, once again, crossing signals. The fact that we cannot explain WHY something is does NOT say that science believes things without testing them for validity.

C'mon Gary. I have been quiet, and have given you the benefit of the doubt in this "ongoing battle" you seem to wish to wage with RU. But when you make statements like this, which are CLEARLY out of context and not supportive of YOUR conclusion, I have to step in and speak my mind.

Ray


Again, more evidence you really have no clue at RU about what lies at the bottom of physics!

You are WRONG my friend. Write and ask Davies. It all falls out from underneath you at the bottom. The laws of physics are based upon faith, not a theory of their causal origin.

A challenge: use a scientific theory to prove EXACTLY where a SINGLE ELECTRON will arrive on a detector screen. [In the double slit experiment]. It can't be done.

And here is a discussion of Davies' article by several scientists:

http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html

And here is a sample of what Davies says about his critics:

The scientific method is the most reliable path to truth we know, and there is no more committed or passionate a scientist than I. Yes, "science works" as John Horgan points out. It is tested again and again as a description of nature. We are all agreed on that point. But it isn't the point I was trying to make. My argument refers, not to the scientific method, but to the underlying lawfulness of the universe itself, which raises questions such as where the laws come from, why they have the form that they do, and whether there is anything peculiar about the actual laws of the universe (such as being "fine-tuned" for life), as opposed to other possible laws. The orthodox position (and the one I set out to challenge in my book) is that the universe is governed by a fixed set of laws in the form of infinitely precise mathematical relationships imprinted on the universe from its birth. In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe — they are immutable. It is not hard to see where this picture comes from: it is inherited from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence whereas God's existence does not depend on the universe.
Last edited by Gary on Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:00 pm

Gary wrote:A challenge: use a scientific theory to prove EXACTLY where a SINGLE ELECTRON will arrive on a detector screen. [In the double slit experiment]. It can't be done.


Two can play at that game, Gary. All I need to do is one-up you:

Prove to me there is such a thing as an electron...and not a wave that mimics a particle. Being able to obfuscate and keep asking questions is a trick that 2 year olds learn with the incessant "why". It is a closed-loop universe Gary. I am well aware of what is "at the bottom".

Have fun.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Gary » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:09 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Gary wrote:A challenge: use a scientific theory to prove EXACTLY where a SINGLE ELECTRON will arrive on a detector screen. [In the double slit experiment]. It can't be done.


Two can play at that game, Gary. All I need to do is one-up you:

Prove to me there is such a thing as an electron...and not a wave that mimics a particle. Being able to obfuscate and keep asking questions is a trick that 2 year olds learn with the incessant "why". It is a closed-loop universe Gary. I am well aware of what is "at the bottom".

Have fun.
Ray


Nonsense! The proof is that a single electron leaves a point-trace on the detector. The wave is inferred from the pattern that appears when the experiment is repeated over and over again, eventually leading to a wave pattern with interference plainly visible on the screen.

But remember: each SINGLE ELECTRON arrived at the screen, one by one IN TIME. The pattern only becomes visible when one examines the detection of an ensemble of SINGLE ELECTRONS over time.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby Gary » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:16 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Gary wrote:Science IS faith-based: read the NY Times article by physicist Paul Davies:

(snip)
Reading the article might save me from a lot of typing BTW! :-)


Science tests theories (and any theory that cannot be tested is not scientific, i.e. not Popper falsifiable). Faith does not require proof/evidence, and NOWHERE in the quote from professor Davies do I see him saying science does not demand evidence or proof. You are, once again, crossing signals. The fact that we cannot explain WHY something is does NOT say that science believes things without testing them for validity.
Ray


And here is what Davies says in his EDGE rebuttal piece:

I am grateful to Sean Carroll for so cogently expressing the orthodox view among physicists that the laws of physics must simply be accepted as a brute fact — that is, they exist without explanation, for no reason. "That's just how things are," writes Carroll. "There is a chain of explanations concerning things that happen in the universe, which ultimately reaches to the fundamental laws of nature and stops." For Carroll, as for many scientists, unexplained laws are thus are the starting point of scientific reasoning, the levitating superturtle at the bottom that holds up the whole tower, just as God is the levitating superturtle that holds up physical existence in monotheism. After 30 years of listening to sterile bickering in the science/religion debate I am utterly bored with the refrain from each side that, in effect, "my superturtle is better than your superturtle." So I have tried to elevate the level of discussion and move on.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:34 am

Gary wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Prove to me there is such a thing as an electron...and not a wave that mimics a particle. Being able to obfuscate and keep asking questions is a trick that 2 year olds learn with the incessant "why". It is a closed-loop universe Gary. I am well aware of what is "at the bottom".

Have fun.
Ray


Nonsense! The proof is that a single electron leaves a point-trace on the detector.


As usual, you only go as deep as you wish to satisfy your own ego, Gary. You are not playing the game the same way you expect others to play it. Who is to say that because something leaves a point-trace on a detector, that it must therefore be a particle?

Perhaps you did not get my inference to wave: I was referring to Milo Wolff's Wave Structure of Matter, wherein he claims the idea of an actual electron as a particle is a fallacy, and rather the effects that lead us to conclude it is a particle are really just the interaction (interference effects) of inwaves and outwaves. It is an alternate view, and I do not see where anyone has falsified it.

I still want you to play the game that you posit it to others...when you think you have reduced far enough...go one more step! That is the game you are calling on others to play, hence you should be willing to play it when challenged. It is the game of ontology. One can always question the veracity of ANY ontology. And as Godel taught us, you will always find a semantic fault. But there lies the dead end of nihilism... and what is the point of that?

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Access Denied » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:07 am

[thread moved to a more appropriate forum]

Gary wrote:Quantum theory is fundamental AND the best tested theory; stripped of the ad-hoc postulate of wave-function collapse it predicts an infinity of branching worlds.

But that’s not the world we live in Gary… Que Sera, Sera
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:44 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:As usual, you only go as deep as you wish to satisfy your own ego, Gary. You are not playing the game the same way you expect others to play it. Who is to say that because something leaves a point-trace on a detector, that it must therefore be a particle?


Maybe mainstream Science suffers from 'Gary's Problem'?

Every child quickly learns that 'Gravity' is responsible for the pain when heavy things get dropped on the Toes or smash the Fingers! Children do not contemplate the Nature of 'Gravity', nor has Mainstream Science! We CAN'T explain Gravity!

Despite the fact that we can't explain it, no-one questions 'Gravity'! Anyone can drop a Brick on their Toe and verify the existence of 'Gravity'.

On the other hand you must be at the right place during the right Time to witness a UAP/UFO! But because you can't repeat this observation 'at will' others tend to doubt the reality of the observation! Contemplate that for a while...
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:57 am

LS,

lost_shaman wrote:Maybe mainstream Science suffers from 'Gary's Problem'?


Could be! To me there is a clear distinction between science and engineering. The engineer stops asking "why?" once he has enough information about a phenomenon to know how to employ it to do something worthwhile (which is relative to each engineer's judgment). Once I can use a technology to do something, I am done asking questions about its nature. Science keeps asking... and at some point it seems (in my opinion) to be of questionable value (but that's just me).

OTOH, I am aware that this type of continuous probing DOES result in turning over new stones and bringing new scientific discoveries that us engineers can then use in new products. So there is a place for it. But when we look around us, what we see is a reductionist paradigm that has taken us to smaller and smaller scales in the realm of the microcosm... we can do more stuff in a smaller space. But what about the other direction? I don't see much going on there that is going to be of any use to engineering any time soon. I could be wrong. Sure, it would be nice to know what dark matter and dark energy really are. And maybe some time in the future such knowledge will help us perform macroscopic engineering beyond the earth.

Enough babble for 2nite! :)
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Access Denied » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:20 am

I'm confused.... is this thread about the nature of UFOs or Reality? Would somebody please pick an angle a stick with it?

lost_shaman wrote:But because you can't repeat this observation 'at will' others tend to doubt the reality of the observation! Contemplate that for a while...

You’re oversimplifying the problem... you're assuming all observations represent the same phenomenon. I would suggest contemplating the utter and complete lack of any unambiguous physical evidence to study…

Edit to add: Excellent babble Ray. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Access Denied » Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:05 am

Oh and here's something a lot less philosophical and a lot more practical for Gary to contemplate from one of the rags I read...

An early stab at quantum control
R&D, March 21, 2008

Researchers at the U. S. Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Microsoft Station Q have made significant advancements in understanding a fundamental problem of quantum mechanics – one that is blocking efforts to develop practical quantum computers with processing speeds far superior to conventional computers. Their respective theoretical and experimental studies investigate how microscopic objects lose their quantum-mechanical properties through interactions with the environment. The results of the researchers’ investigations were presented earlier this month at the American Physical Society meeting held in New Orleans and also reported in Science Express.

“Quantum-mechanical particles can interact with their environments: visible light, or photons; molecules of the air; crystal vibrations; and many other things,” says Viatcheslav Dobrovitski, an Ames Laboratory theoretical physicist. “All these uncontrollable interactions randomly ‘kick’ the system, destroying quantum phases, or the ability of particles to preserve coherence between different quantum states.”

Quantum coherence is essential to developing quantum computers in which information would be stored and processed on quantum mechanical states of quantum bits, called qubits. So the self-destructive nature of quantum-mechanical states interacting with the environment is a huge problem.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled Reality…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:31 pm

This is a great find AD!

Their respective theoretical and experimental studies investigate how microscopic objects lose their quantum-mechanical properties through interactions with the environment.

(snip)

So the self-destructive nature of quantum-mechanical states interacting with the environment is a huge problem.


This (once again) reinforces the system paradigm (Systems Theory) as the dominant factor in our universe. No single entity is important unto itself. Rather, the value of any one thing only emerges as a result of its relationships to other things! And BTW, this is also the "correct answer" that destroys the nihilist and the dead end road that is nihilism that I had mentioned to Gary earlier. Value does NOT come in futher isolating particles to subparticles and asking "what is it made of". Rather, value comes from the connectionist schema where emergent behavior is the result of two or more entities sharing energy in a cooperative manner to produce some extant result.

Relationships are what reality is made of. Just as certain as E = mc^2 (that's a relationship, folks!) :)

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Previous

Google

Return to Reality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron