AlanF, and other "tree falling makes a sound" realist (page 6)

Realist

jst2laws,

i wish i would understand quantum mechanics! but it seems "understanding" in this matter can only mean being able to describe the properties of the elementary objects that form matter and energy. as far as i know nobody really understands what a photon or an electron is or why they behave the way they do. our brains are not constructed to grasp the true nature of these things. (think about the wave-particle dualism for instance or the break down of causality).

therefore i would not dare to argue for or against the idea that particles become real only when they are observed. Intuitively i would stick to einsteins view and say that particles are REAL whether observed or not - but then again intuitively i would also say that time is something absolut - and it is not.

farkel,

you correctly stateted the meaning of the anthropic principle - but this is not really related to the copenhagen interpretation (which states that particles are unreal unless observed - i.e. there really is no proton and electron circling it unless it interacts with something called an observer). the anthropic principle mearly states that if the laws of the universe and the start conditions at the big bang would have been different than indeed we would not be here and could not ask the question as to why the things are the way they are.

onacruse

roflmao @ "ontheloose"

Farkel, for the record I'll have you know that Kate does her very best to keep me in that straight-jacket...but occasionally she has to leave the house, and I have a few Houdini tricks.

gumby

Now I know the REAL reason the society discouraged college for you ex-dub bastards. They knew if you left them and started reading the stuff you guys have been reading......you'd turn into intellectual idiot bastards that make no damn sense. Be like a damn simpleminded hillbilly and forget all that shit you read.

If your going to discredit the fact that a tree falling only makes a sound because a life form "percieves it" a certain way as sound.......then you might as well be like one of those potsmokin nerdy hippy kids we all knew in school who'd ask you the dumbass question......" how do you know your really here"?

Geesh! We are humans....and we do hear sound. It's really that simple. Go ask an ant what he hears when a tree falls, then base your answer off his comments. We're speaking of humans here.....not ants.

( I'm not pickin on you steve......just many of the ideas here are a bit silly IMHO)

Gumsimple

jst2laws

Realist

I wish i would understand quantum mechanics! but it seems "understanding" in this matter can only mean being able to describe the properties of the elementary objects that form matter and energy. as far as i know nobody really understands what a photon or an electron is or why they behave the way they do. our brains are not constructed to grasp the true nature of these things. (think about the wave-particle dualism for instance or the break down of causality).

It sounds like you may have more understanding of this than myself, but yes, it is beyond understanding so far. We will never understand it with the old approach, that subatomic particles are "little queue balls" buzzing around. What we at least know for sure is that they are not solids as we thought. But then if there are no queue ball like solids in the atoms which make up everything then there is really no queue ball like solids ANYWHERE. Anything appearing to be solid is there . . . whatever it is . . . . but its solidity is an allusion. What that boils down to is "there is no spoon", assuming you are a movie buff. I suspect the only way future science will understand what they are observing inside the atom is to adopt a new approach, perhaps more philosophical, maybe a little mystical. After all it was a Creek philosopher who coined the term "Atom" over two thousand years ago. Maybe it is time to let them take another shot at it. That's my philosophy. Jst2laws

SixofNine

What that boils down to is "there is no spoon", assuming you are a movie buff.

how do you reconcile that statement with this one:

Anything appearing to be solid is there . . . whatever it is

?

jst2laws

Gumbie

Geesh! We are humans....and we do hear sound. It's really that simple.

And it can remain that simple if one chooses. If a pursuit of this sort causes one to loose appreciation for experiencing life as a human with all its pleasures, consistency and apparent stability . . . then dont do it. That might be the majority. The question of the 'falling tree making a sound', if I remember correctly, was originally proposed by a famous mystic trying to help others to appreciate a higher level of reality. He believed that all human experience is a very consistent allusion. But this discussion is about science and its discoveries in the past 100 years. Strangely science and mysticism seem to have met on the same road in their quest for answers. Scary, isn't it? But it is anything but "silly", although I admit it will appear that way to many. Dear Cynical Six

What that boils down to is "there is no spoon", assuming you are a movie buff.

how do you reconcile that statement with this one:
Anything appearing to be solid is there . . . whatever it is
?

The key is the word "appearing" in the phrase "appearing to be solid". We perceive it to be "there". Our perception is what we call real, the appearance of solidity is real to us, but since there are no queue balls in the atom it is nothing more than perception and appearances of a complex system of energy. The quote "there is no spoon" is from a piece of fiction but our reality is not much different. Jst2laws Jst2laws

gumby

The question of the 'falling tree making a sound', if I remember correctly, was originally proposed by a famous mystic trying to help others to appreciate a higher level of reality. He believed that all human experience is a very consistent allusion.

So....is this mystic correct? Do you believe him? If life is an allusion, then we all have the same allusion, because we percieve the same on factual matters in which there is no question. If life is an allusion, then nobody has a clue as to what reality is, so there would be no point in trying to "help others appreciate a higher level of reality"......unless the teacher of this theory isn't human.

Gumby

jukief

Alan's in New York visiting his brother for another week, so I doubt he'll see your post, Steve.

jst2laws

Gumby

So....is this mystic correct? Do you believe him? If life is an allusion, then we all have the same allusion, because we perceive the same on factual matters in which there is no question. If life is an allusion, then nobody has a clue as to what reality is, so there would be no point in trying to "help others appreciate a higher level of reality"......unless the teacher of this theory isn't human.

Sorry, but this is not about mysticism. It is about quantum physics. As I said above:

this discussion is about science and its discoveries in the past 100 years.

What is hard to deal with is the fact that High Energy Physicists (the particle accelerator guys) have proven there is no "stuff" like we expected to find inside the atom, just a lot of fast moving energy waves that sometimes take on the quality of particles. This is science, not mysticism.

Maybe it would help to watch a movie called "Mind Walk". You cant get it at the regular movie rentals but we found it at our local Science Learning Center. You are not alone in your skepticism, Gumby. Since much of this has been known since the 1920's it seems strange it was not taught in high school. But from this discussion I'm beginning to see why.

Jukief,

Alan's in New York visiting his brother for another week, so I doubt he'll see your post, Steve.

Thank you. Hope he is having a good time. It has been a good discussion anyway.

Jst2laws

LittleToe

Craig:
Ok, I'll give proving it a shot

Now there you go again. Why so negative.

Not negative, imo. One of the most freeing and positive experiences in my life is to finally realize that what I think is all that matters; it sounds very egotistical, but such is life.

Whether egotistical or not, it still comes across as negative. Gotta agree with Steve on this one

Isn't it true that for the first time in human exploration that science, philosophy, and even the mystics are on the same page (no religion isn't there. they are still sacrificing souls).
No, I don't think so. The convergence has a long way to go (think differential calculus).

I agree with Steve here, too. The mystics are definitely more scientifically orientated, these days.

Is it possible the slight stall over the last few decades is because physicists are reluctant to take the leap?
No, I don't think so. Physicists are like AlanF: "show me the facts, and only the facts."

Some physicists are happy to use their imagination and take leaps of faith. They then apply scientific method to their theories in an attempt to see if they are disprovable.
See Einstein.
Not everyone wants to stay on safe ground. Some want to reach the bleeding edge.
The "safe-grounders" are possibly stalling the process.

AlanF, and other "tree falling makes a sound" realist

Share this