String theory, wormholes, QM and WOW

[Ed]

I will freely admit that I have little knowledge of the topics mentioned in the subject of this thread. However, it apprears that these rather abstruse concepts are, and have been, invoked to provide a rationale for various purported paranormal phenomena. They seem to be appealed to, it seems, because few people know WTF they are/mean. They have become the putitive saviour of the World of Woo (WOW).

How does one address this? Speaking for myself, I am not going to spend the time necessary to gain enough of an understanding to reasonably refute them when they are invoked.

I believe that the invokeors have as little a clue as I do. So... what to do? Might one ask "show me the maths"? Or what.

I would be interested in hearing from Stimson on this.

[The Don]

The reason that this is done is because string theory, wormholes and quantum mechanics are:

- difficult to visualise
- somewhat counter-intuitive in places
- impressive sounding

All of these seem to say "weird stuff happens - all the time". This is then applied by people to the paranormal on the basis that because of it "weird stuff happens - all the time".

The best way to refute them when they are invoked is to get the person proposing them as a mechanism to say HOW whichever thing is related. This will generally get them to the stage where you reallise that ALL they know about, say, QM is the term QM. They will not have read anything on the subject.

If they do have a coherent theory about how QM (or whatever) applies, get them to explain QM, and the application in simple terms. At least this way you'll have learned something about the subject matter.

Sorry for not being Stimpson

[geni]

Quantum physics doesn't apply on the macro scale. This seems to work quite well.

[Ed]

Quite ok.

I am not sure if that is quite good enough, though.

Do you recall David Frost having written the "Bluffers Guide" series?

It is really not hard to snow someone who simply has no idea of the subject matter.

[Ed]

Originally posted by geni
Quantum physics doesn't apply on the macro scale. This seems to work quite well.

Yet, but there is tantilizing evidence from CERN and L'Institute de la Astrophysics out of Paris that the essential constituents of space-time, that is to say the instantanious pico fluctuations hypothesised by the Barzinni Process (which describes space-time as an n-dimentional hyper-sphereoid) can, and do in fact, manifest themselves in situations where the local radient flux of an emitting body is measured in a narrow window (The Eimes Fenistra) in the range of 1-1.5 tetra-joules. We will have to wait and see.

Get my drift?

[Rolfe]

There was a thread last month sort of on the same subject.

Quantum weirdness (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30516).

Rolfe.

[geni]

If what they are doing is in the range of 1-1.5 tetra-joules we are in big trouble (hint a lot of pople know what a joul is try a different unit of energy).

[Ed]

Originally posted by geni
If what they are doing is in the range of 1-1.5 tetra-joules we are in big trouble (hint a lot of pople know what a joul is try a different unit of energy).

:D

Luoj sorta like mho vs. ohm?

Seriously, you get my drift, right?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
I will freely admit that I have little knowledge of the topics mentioned in the subject of this thread. However, it apprears that these rather abstruse concepts are, and have been, invoked to provide a rationale for various purported paranormal phenomena. They seem to be appealed to, it seems, because few people know WTF they are/mean. They have become the putitive saviour of the World of Woo (WOW).

How does one address this? Speaking for myself, I am not going to spend the time necessary to gain enough of an understanding to reasonably refute them when they are invoked.

I believe that the invokeors have as little a clue as I do. So... what to do? Might one ask "show me the maths"? Or what.

I would be interested in hearing from Stimson on this.

I have never heard of string theory and worm holes being appealed to in the support of the reality of certain paranormal phenomena. If they do I agree that it's silly.

QM is of course different. QM seems to suggest that it is difficult to attach any meaning to a characterisation of physical reality in abstraction from ones observations, and hence perceptions. This then would refute materialism. If materialism is refuted then this implies consciousness is different from the observed world (ie physical reality) and the alleged prima facie implausibility of paranormal phenomena can no longer be maintained.

Also consider non-local effects in Quantum Mechanics. If measuring a particular property of some elementary particle can instantly determine that same property of its twin, maybe on the other side of the Universe, then it's not entirely clear why something like telepathy is all that more surprising.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by geni
Quantum physics doesn't apply on the macro scale. This seems to work quite well.

Oh, that's interesting! Thank you for informing me! Ermmm . .could you explain why it doesn't? What is it about the macroscopic that QM can't apply to it?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have never heard of string theory and worm holes being appealed to in the support of the reality of certain paranormal phenomena. If they do I agree that it's silly.

QM is of course different. QM seems to suggest that it is difficult to attach any meaning to a characterisation of physical reality in abstraction from ones observations, and hence perceptions. This then would refute materialism. If materialism is refuted then this implies consciousness is different from the observed world (ie physical reality) and the alleged prima facie implausibility of paranormal phenomena can no longer be maintained.

Also consider non-local effects in Quantum Mechanics. If measuring a particular property of some elementary particle can instantly determine that same property of its twin, maybe on the other side of the Universe, then it's not entirely clear why something like telepathy is all that more surprising.


Ermmmm... no offence Ian, but QED

[geni]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh, that's interesting! Thank you for informing me! Ermmm . .could you explain why it doesn't? What is it about the macroscopic that QM can't apply to it?

Well there is the way your not floting around your room (well I assume that your not). QM really doesn't handle the whole gravity thing very well. There is also the way that batteries can't be charged and flat at the same time.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by geni


Well there is the way your not floting around your room (well I assume that your not). QM really doesn't handle the whole gravity thing very well. There is also the way that batteries can't be charged and flat at the same time.

Yes, but due to the smallness of the plank constant, when we apply QM to the macroscopic world, doesn't the description of the behaviour of everyday bodies almost exactly equal the behaviour as described by classical theory?

The fact that QM and relativity don't fit together very well doesn't mean that QM doesn't apply to the macroscopic world. Besides, isn't string theory supposed to resolve this conflict?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I always just ask, "Have you got the math for that?" If they ask for clarification, which they rarely do, I point out that they are giving an interpretation of QM. Then I ask for the math again.

~~ Paul

[epepke]

Originally posted by geni
Quantum physics doesn't apply on the macro scale. This seems to work quite well.

Except that it's a false statement. If that's not a problem, then it works OK. But it's false. Not only in the boring sense in which all of the macroscopic world follows and builds on quantum mechanics, but in the interesting sense in which lots of macroscopic things cannot be explained except by going to QM. The very behavior of light, for instance. The wave model fails for cases as simple as two emitters and two detectors. The vision in all creatures works on quantum principles; in mammals, it's quantum chemistry using a molecule called trans-retinal. Transistors and vacuum tubes are quantum devices.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I always just ask, "Have you got the math for that?"I'm sorry, I can't resist this....

Lionel Milgrom has (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom1.pdf).
In fact twice (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom2.pdf).
And even a third time (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom3.pdf).

Rolfe.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I always just ask, "Have you got the math for that?" If they ask for clarification, which they rarely do, I point out that they are giving an interpretation of QM. Then I ask for the math again.

~~ Paul

Yes it is interpretations of QM. The maths for QM is fine. Indeed QM is by far the most successful scientific theory ever. Almost all our modern technology is based on it. Just imagine how boring the world would be if the materialist scientists of the late 19th century had been right. They'd be no computer games or anything! :(

God has created a world so that it appears very simple, but the more and more we discover about it, the more and more hidden depths we reveal. We will never get a total theory of everything. But this is very fortunate for us :) There will be no limit to technological advances because of this.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
God has created a world so that it appears very simple...
To you, maybe.

[bjornart]

QM is a theory which explains lots of scientific and observable events. If you want to base a theory of ESP on that, please go ahead, but it doesn't really matter until you also come up with some observable ESP events.

I invoke the Invisble Pink Unicorns, and will soon reveal my theory that explains their existence through QM. (Please regard that next to last sentence when evaluating the merit of this post.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bjornart
[B]QM is a theory which explains lots of scientific and observable events. If you want to base a theory of ESP on that,


No I don't.



please go ahead, but it doesn't really matter until you also come up with some observable ESP events.



They have been observed throughout history and across all cultures.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ed


Yet, but there is tantilizing evidence from CERN and L'Institute de la Astrophysics out of Paris that the essential constituents of space-time, that is to say the instantanious pico fluctuations hypothesised by the Barzinni Process (which describes space-time as an n-dimentional hyper-sphereoid) can, and do in fact, manifest themselves in situations where the local radient flux of an emitting body is measured in a narrow window (The Eimes Fenistra) in the range of 1-1.5 tetra-joules. We will have to wait and see.

This definitely florishes the befreenie out of me.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No I don't.

Well I wasn't addressing you, I was answering the OP.



They have been observed throughout history and across all cultures.
So have elves and big, hairy humanoids.

[Interesting Ian]

II
They have been observed throughout history and across all cultures.

bjornart
So have elves and big, hairy humanoids.

Can you substantiate this? How many people who you have ever come into contact with have had an experience which they have labelled "esp"? How many people who you have ever come into contact with have had an experience which they have labelled an elf?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Can you substantiate this? How many people who you have ever come into contact with have had an experience which they have labelled "esp"? How many people who you have ever come into contact with have had an experience which they have labelled an elf?

Quite few of both actually. But not zero for either.

[Interesting Ian]

II
Can you substantiate this? How many people who you have ever come into contact with have had an experience which they have labelled "esp"? How many people who you have ever come into contact with have had an experience which they have labelled an elf?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


bjornart
Quite few of both actually. But not zero for either.

You need to bear in mind that reports of both elves and big, hairy humanoids are relying upon visual sensations where as esp, by definition is not. What we actually see is filtered through low level theory ie our implicit understanding about the world. It can be expected to vary depending on cultural context and implicit psychological expectations etc. Thus, even if elves do exist, it seems highly unlikely that what people are labelling an elf is the same regardless of cultural context. So I'm sceptical about what you're implying here.

But hey, if people throughout history and across all cultures are frequently reporting something very similar in visual appearance, then it seems likely that some external causal agency is responsible, regardless of the character of that external causal agency.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh, that's interesting! Thank you for informing me! Ermmm . .could you explain why it doesn't? What is it about the macroscopic that QM can't apply to it?

Fallacy of composition.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Can you substantiate this? How many people who you have ever come into contact with have had an experience which they have labelled "esp"? How many people who you have ever come into contact with have had an experience which they have labelled an elf?

Actually, I have never personally met anyone who claimed to have had an experience with ESP but I used to know someone (The parents of one of my best friends in high school) who claimed to have had an experince with elves, or at least the Paiute Indian equivalent.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You need to bear in mind that reports of both elves and big, hairy humanoids are relying upon visual sensations where as esp, by definition is not. What we actually see is filtered through low level theory ie our implicit understanding about the world. It can be expected to vary depending on cultural context and implicit psychological expectations etc. Thus, even if elves do exist, it seems highly unlikely that what people are labelling an elf is the same regardless of cultural context. So I'm sceptical about what you're implying here.

But hey, if people throughout history and across all cultures are frequently reporting something very similar in visual appearance, then it seems likely that some external causal agency is responsible, regardless of the character of that external causal agency.

I'm saying that if there the reports of people throughout history and in all cultures that they've met beings of various sort, who are obviously outside current scientific knowledge of the world, but abound in myths, is a very good analogy to esp, which has been reported by people throughout history and in all cultures, is obviously outside current scientific knowledge of the world, but abound in myths.
The filtering through the cognitive functions of the person doing the reporting and possibly a second person person doing the recording is far more significant than the difference between the filtering of a visual sensation compared with a hypothetical sixth, seventh or eighth sense which no one knows how would function.
There are prefectly decent explanations of why people think they've seen trolls, and elves, and whatchamacallits, and they overlap with the explanations of why people think they've seen the future, read minds or influenced matter directly with the mind.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed
I will freely admit that I have little knowledge of the topics mentioned in the subject of this thread. However, it apprears that these rather abstruse concepts are, and have been, invoked to provide a rationale for various purported paranormal phenomena.

Based on what I know, all "effects" happen near either huge energy or huge mass.

I think we'd notice either :), at least if we had a chance to notice anything.

[geni]

Originally posted by epepke


Except that it's a false statement. If that's not a problem, then it works OK. But it's false. Not only in the boring sense in which all of the macroscopic world follows and builds on quantum mechanics, but in the interesting sense in which lots of macroscopic things cannot be explained except by going to QM. The very behavior of light, for instance. The wave model fails for cases as simple as two emitters and two detectors. The vision in all creatures works on quantum principles; in mammals, it's quantum chemistry using a molecule called trans-retinal. Transistors and vacuum tubes are quantum devices.


I know. My favriot example of this is the way you don't get sprayed by hard radition every time you srike a match. Thge difference is that in all these cases you are starting on the quantum scale and working up.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Also consider non-local effects in Quantum Mechanics. If measuring a
particular property of some elementary particle can instantly determine
that same property of its twin, maybe on the other side of the Universe,
then it's not entirely clear why something like telepathy is all that more
surprising.

Didn't I refute this before?
In the case of a particle decaying with no spin into two photons
- particles that do have spin - each photon has a spin opposite
that of the other so both spins add up to zero. An observer does
not know what spin each photon has. Only when you measure
one photon do you instantly know what the spin of the other
photon across the universe has.

Telepathy on the other hand has no quality evidence of its
operation, so one assumes coincidence, luck, cheating, ect.

P.S. I'm no expert in quantum mechanics as I am still studying
the Quan (http://www.missworld.org/contestants2.asp?item=177&page=7) aspect in detail. I'll get to the Tum part laters. Oddly,
I now have no insomnia, but I cannot remember my dreams.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


QM seems to suggest that it is difficult to attach any meaning to a characterisation of physical reality in abstraction from ones observations, and hence perceptions. This then would refute materialism.

Are you refering to the Heissenberg uncertainty principle? Course there's no contradiction between materialism and the uncertainty principle. In fact the uncertainty principle only applies, because our mechanism of perception is materialistic.

[Lost Boy]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I'm sorry, I can't resist this....

Lionel Milgrom has (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom1.pdf).
In fact twice (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom2.pdf).
And even a third time (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom3.pdf).

Rolfe.

Hmmm...I can see the problem here.

I can't follow all of the maths fully, not being a physicist, but I think the problem is inherent in his use of the word 'Metaphor' in the title. Just because he says the things in his equations actually represent the real world stuation of homeopathy doesn't mean they actually do. The problem is that although I can see that this is the problem, it would actually require a competent mathematician to refute it from first principles, and even if that was done, the obvious denfence would be to say "Ah, I only meantit as an analogy", which would be like fighting with fog!

It does mean though that this superficially impressive stuff can be liberally quoted by the woo-woos without an effective challenge.


Reading the papers again, I think the error arises at the point at which he just starts treating the therapeutic interaction as if the patient and therapist are quantum mechanically entangled particles, which they are not. They are macroscopic real world objects. His extension of proper QM to this is made in a statement "there is no constant like Planck's constant (h) in WQT [Weak Quantum Theory]" In other words he just waves away and subsequently ignore the constant that ties QM to microscale events and then works as if it didn't exist.

Sure, if h didn't apply to QM then all sorts of things would be different, but then the whole universe around us would be different (except that we wouldn't be here to observe that difference). His argument, I think boils down to, "If my Aunty had balls, she'd be my Uncle" to which the only rational response is, "Yes, but she doesn't". Similary, he says let's pretend h doesn't exist or is a much larger number, to which the reply is, "But it does and it is that number"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Also consider non-local effects in Quantum Mechanics. If measuring a
particular property of some elementary particle can instantly determine
that same property of its twin, maybe on the other side of the Universe,
then it's not entirely clear why something like telepathy is all that more
surprising.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Didn't I refute this before?



Dunno, you certainly haven't here.



In the case of a particle decaying with no spin into two photons
- particles that do have spin - each photon has a spin opposite
that of the other so both spins add up to zero. An observer does
not know what spin each photon has. Only when you measure
one photon do you instantly know what the spin of the other
photon across the universe has.



Yes, and the measurement instantaneously determines both the spins of the 2 particles.



Telepathy on the other hand has no quality evidence of its
operation, so one assumes coincidence, luck, cheating, ect.



You mean you do. No quality evidence? Well, I guess so. It's not like using the phone. Still we have anecdotal evidence spanning throughout human history and across all cultures, and we have scientific evidence. Therefore those who dispute its existence need to provide excellent reasons for supposing its non-existence. I have never heard any such excellent reasons.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


QM seems to suggest that it is difficult to attach any meaning to a characterisation of physical reality in abstraction from ones observations, and hence perceptions. This then would refute materialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you refering to the Heissenberg uncertainty principle? Course there's no contradiction between materialism and the uncertainty principle.



That's not what Heisenberg himself thought is it though? Anyway, tell me. What does QM say reality is like when it's not being measured?



In fact the uncertainty principle only applies, because our mechanism of perception is materialistic.

I have absolutely no idea what this could conceivably mean. What does materialistic mean? You need to provide reasons why the uncertainty principle wouldn't apply should the mechanism of perception be non-materialistic.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bjornart

II
You need to bear in mind that reports of both elves and big, hairy humanoids are relying upon visual sensations where as esp, by definition is not. What we actually see is filtered through low level theory ie our implicit understanding about the world. It can be expected to vary depending on cultural context and implicit psychological expectations etc. Thus, even if elves do exist, it seems highly unlikely that what people are labelling an elf is the same regardless of cultural context. So I'm sceptical about what you're implying here.

But hey, if people throughout history and across all cultures are frequently reporting something very similar in visual appearance, then it seems likely that some external causal agency is responsible, regardless of the character of that external causal agency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bjornart

I'm saying that if there the reports of people throughout history and in all cultures that they've met beings of various sort, who are obviously outside current scientific knowledge of the world, but abound in myths, is a very good analogy to esp,



I know. What's wrong? I suppose you didn't understand my response?



The filtering through the cognitive functions of the person doing the reporting and possibly a second person person doing the recording is far more significant than the difference between the filtering of a visual sensation compared with a hypothetical sixth, seventh or eighth sense which no one knows how would function.



This conveys little meaning to me. And esp doesn't function, I would say it simply exists.


There are prefectly decent explanations of why people think they've seen trolls, and elves, and whatchamacallits,


Not if people are seeing exactly the same things 10,000 years ago as they do in the present day. You would think that what people see would depend on cultural context. That is unless elves are real.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Lost Boy
It does mean though that this superficially impressive stuff can be liberally quoted by the woo-woos without an effective challenge.Yes, I've seen this quoted, including the title with the word metaphor, as "research" which is validating the whole of homoeopathy. Funny sort of research without a single experimental result (or even a single experiment) in it!Originally posted by Lost Boy
Sure, if h didn't apply to QM then all sorts of things would be different, but then the whole universe around us would be different (except that we wouldn't be here to observe that difference). His argument, I think boils down to, "If my Aunty had balls, she'd be my Uncle" to which the only rational response is, "Yes, but she doesn't". Similary, he says let's pretend h doesn't exist or is a much larger number, to which the reply is, "But it does and it is that number"[/I] This was explored in the earlier thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30516) I mentioned above. Wipeout posted a link to the original "weak quantum theory" paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104109), complete with the remark that discarding Planck's constant didn't seem to be a very good start, and the priceless comment, "this isn't physics, it's a fruitcake recipe."

I finally got round to looking at the thing, but didn't get beyond the authors' names before I cracked up. The first author (Atmanspacher) hails from the Max Planck Institute :D, but the really good bit is that the third author is Harald Walach, homoeopath extraordinaire, and author of my favourite paper from Homeopathy, the one which simply states that homoeopathy is magic (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/walach.pdf). It's interesting that Milgrom leans very heavily on Walach's "Magic of Signs" paper at the beginning of his argument.

In fact the whole thing is completely self-referencing, and seems to have been dreamed up by this small coterie of homoeopath loons in the upper echelons of academia to validate their own delusions. (Someone else on this board told me that Milgrom is actually researching into porphyria at Imperial, and people just sort of change the subject if the homoeopathy thing comes up.) :nope:

The self-referencing nature of the argument and the elimination of Planck's constant seem to me to be about enough detail to counter the homoeopaths' assertions, because it's pretty much a dead cert that the homoeopath foot-soldiers themselves who quote Milgrom haven't even got that far into the details.

Rolfe.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by me


there's no contradiction between materialism and the uncertainty principle.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


That's not what Heisenberg himself thought is it though? Anyway, tell me. What does QM say reality is like when it's not being measured?

Well I've never talked to Heisenberg, so I don’t know what he thought about anything. As for what QM says about how reality, when it's not being measured, I've heard that it acts differently, but I don't remember the details, or how reliable my sources are. In any case there's nothing odd about it, even if it’s true, since we can't measure something without affecting it by materialistic means.


Originally posted by me


In fact the uncertainty principle only applies, because our mechanism of perception is materialistic.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I have absolutely no idea what this could conceivably mean. What does materialistic mean? You need to provide reasons why the uncertainty principle wouldn't apply should the mechanism of perception be non-materialistic.

I suppose that was a little vague. What i meant was that to see/measure something we have to "hit" it with a photon or another particle and thus affect it. this effect is insignificant to macroscopic objects, but when a small particle is hit by another particle it changes its speed. This is the reason for the uncertainty principle.
If we want to measure a particles position very precisely, we have to use a photon with a short wavelength and thus a lot of energy, which means that the speed of the particle will change a lot. Therefore the more precisely we want to measure a particles position, the less precisely we can measure its speed. If it was possible to measure the speed and position of a particle by non-materialistic means, then there's no reason why there should be a limit to the precision we could achieve.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Kerberos
As for what QM says about how reality, when it's not being measured, I've heard that it acts differently, but I don't remember the details, or how reliable my sources are. In any case there's nothing odd about it, even if it’s true, since we can't measure something without affecting it by materialistic means.

The concepts of measurement and observation are some of the most misleading legacies of early thinking in QM.

Interaction is the key. If something interacts with something else such that there is some state change, then the behavior is different from when nothing does. The idea that you can't measure something without affecting it is important, but it isn't the whole story. The other major part is that if nothing is interacting with it, you can't just sort of pretend that something is interacting and do simple logic to make conclusions.

Take the two slit experiment. (Please!) If something is interacting with the electron which could, even in principle, measure it as going through one slit or the other, then you get an answer. However, if nothing is, then you can't even declare that it goes through one slit or the other.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by epepke


The other major part is that if nothing is interacting with it, you can't just sort of pretend that something is interacting and do simple logic to make conclusions.

Take the two slit experiment. (Please!) If something is interacting with the electron which could, even in principle, measure it as going through one slit or the other, then you get an answer. However, if nothing is, then you can't even declare that it goes through one slit or the other.

I've heard something like that before, but I'll admit that I don't really get it. If nothing interacts with the particle, how can we know that it didn't go through one of the slits? doesn't it become an entirelly philosophical discusion, with no way of testing what's true.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by me


there's no contradiction between materialism and the uncertainty principle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


That's not what Heisenberg himself thought is it though? Anyway, tell me. What does QM say reality is like when it's not being measured?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well I've never talked to Heisenberg, so I don’t know what he thought about anything. As for what QM says about how reality, when it's not being measured, I've heard that it acts differently, but I don't remember the details, or how reliable my sources are. In any case there's nothing odd about it, even if it’s true, since we can't measure something without affecting it by materialistic means.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by me


In fact the uncertainty principle only applies, because our mechanism of perception is materialistic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I have absolutely no idea what this could conceivably mean. What does materialistic mean? You need to provide reasons why the uncertainty principle wouldn't apply should the mechanism of perception be non-materialistic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I suppose that was a little vague. What i meant was that to see/measure something we have to "hit" it with a photon or another particle and thus affect it. this effect is insignificant to macroscopic objects, but when a small particle is hit by another particle it changes its speed. This is the reason for the uncertainty principle.
If we want to measure a particles position very precisely, we have to use a photon with a short wavelength and thus a lot of energy, which means that the speed of the particle will change a lot. Therefore the more precisely we want to measure a particles position, the less precisely we can measure its speed. If it was possible to measure the speed and position of a particle by non-materialistic means, then there's no reason why there should be a limit to the precision we could achieve.




You're conflating here 2 absolutely different senses of the word materialism. When you say the mechanism of perception is materialistic the word "materialistic" here is inappropriate. I mean otherwise a material world would exist by definition! :eek: You cannot use empirical facts about the world to logically deduce the existence of a material world without simply begging the question.

Anyhow, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't just state that we are unable to precisely measure simultaneously a particles position and momentum, but that it doesn't actually possess both simultaneously a precise position and momentum. This was why I was asking you what reality is like in abstraction from our observations. Basically no answer, so it seems to me, is possible.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You're conflating here 2 absolutely different senses of the word materialism. When you say the mechanism of perception is materialistic the word "materialistic" here is inappropriate. I mean otherwise a material world would exist by definition! :eek: You cannot use empirical facts about the world to logically deduce the existence of a material world without simply begging the question.

Gee! did I actually use the word materialistic, in such a way that it becomes possible to bring FACTS into the discussion *oh horror*:rolleyes:. In any case I didn't prove or attempt to prove the existence of the materialistic world, but rather that a specific phenomenon happened through an "apparently" materialistic mechanism. Now we could discuss whether the material world really exists, from now and till the end of time, but as you've already noticed I have this tendency to prefer discussions, where you can bring in evidence and perhaps even facts :eek: A terrible flaw of character.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Anyhow, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't just state that we are unable to precisely measure simultaneously a particles position and momentum, but that it doesn't actually possess both simultaneously a precise position and momentum. This was why I was asking you what reality is like in abstraction from our observations. Basically no answer, so it seems to me, is possible.

According to my physics book the Uncertainty Principle only places limits on how precisely we can measure reality not on reality itself.