It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:19 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
joe wrote:
brian livesey wrote:
A consequence of confounding theory with practice is that we can fall into the idealist trap of thinking that the universe is a creation of the mind,

I don't see anyone with any sense falling into that trap. As I see it, Wilson is only suggesting that the mind, through our senses, is one of many tools we employ to detect the universe - not create it.

...and that each and everyone of us has a reality tunnel in which we all perceive things differently from one another.
The most important words he spoke were that we need to include our own neurological functions into our mathematical models of the Universe and that the model we create is based on those functions together with the tools we use. That is why he says that all perception is a gamble and I cannot think of a better way of describing it. The way he describes it is beautiful.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
Truth still lies in practice, regardless of "perception being a gamble". Wilson says that our experiments "do not describe the universe". Is he saying that the empirically-established law of gravity doesn't work in practice? Of course it does.
The law is a mental construct ( a "symbolic game" as Wilson misleadingly describes it ), yes, but a construct derived from experiment.
In it's infinite variety, we can never know everything about the universe. Furthermore, in an evolving universe knowledge can never be complete because of emerging new conditions.
It's self-evident that the data we glean from nature depends on the instrumentation used, but this doesn't invalidate the accuracy of the data in respect of revealing a particular facet of nature.
Science is supremely objective. If it were subjective, it wouldn't work. Wilson's retreat into Plato's cave and the misty world of Buddhism, shows that he has a quasi-mystical/mystical view of reality, which he defines as "real reality". Please pass the bottle. :lol:

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
brian livesey wrote:
Wilson says that our experiments "do not describe the universe". Is he saying that the empirically-established law of gravity doesn't work in practice? Of course it does.

No, he said that any model we make does not describe the universe, only what our brains are capable of saying at this time. What does that have to do with gravity not working?

Quote:
The law is a mental construct ( a "symbolic game" as Wilson misleadingly describes it ), yes, but a construct derived from experiment.

Undeniably, but who is saying otherwise?

Quote:
Wilson's retreat into Plato's cave and the misty world of Buddhism, shows that he has a quasi-mystical/mystical view of reality,

I hardly think a "retreat into Plato's cave and the misty world of Buddhism" represents anything remotely like the view I heard him express. His comments are hardly new or controversial, I have read similar views from practically all writers on the subject. Wilson is, like many other commentators on QM, using humour to point out its oddness. To some extent, QM challenges the empiricist's view of science, at least for now - err... not that I'm any kind of expert! 8)

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 2:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Once again we see Brian attacking any kind of generalisation or expressionism. Buddism was mentioned by Wilson as purely an example of expression or a particular type of thought process and you immedietly jumped on it. You seem to jump at any kind of thought process that doesn't fit into you're own Western, democratic idiology thought process. You are truly a child of the state unable to think for yourself!!
Remember what Wilson said 'all perception is gamble'....is that not a perfect example of you're very own thought process in which you assume that Buddism or any other kind of expressionism that doesn't fit into you're own perception of what reality means 'is wrong'?
All desisions we make as human beings are based on our own perception of how we see things individually, perception being the most important word of all. Brian, you're own perception of how you see anything in this world is gamble.....and anyone with half an ounce of brain can never disagree with that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 8:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:41 pm
Posts: 1450
Location: 55° 57'N: 03° 08'W
My half ounce of brain perceives that you have misspelt
"your" three times, as "you're".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
Thanks, Stella.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
Quasar's use of words like "weird" and "bizzare" to describe quantum-mechanical effects, smacks of a quasi-mystical/mystical view of the phenomena.
These phenomena are as natural as the wind and the rain, and we don't describe the latter as being weird and bizzare.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 10:04 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
brian livesey wrote:
These phenomena are as natural as the wind and the rain, and we don't describe the latter as being weird and bizzare.

Really, Brian? I'd say those words are often used to describe the wind and the rain if they appear different to the norm. I'd use them especially if I discovered wind and rain that I had never encountered before; monsoon rains or tornadoes for example. They are only used to describe the unusual. After much exposure I wouldn't feel the need to use them. There are some aspects of QM that I am now quite familiar with and would no longer describe them as strange whereas others new to the subject might find them bizarre.

I think you punish people too quickly for using words to describe an emotional response to something they find fascinating. We are not writing papers here. However you may be correct in some circumstances. You may even be correct here but I don't see it.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 10:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:08 pm
Posts: 496
Location: UK
To return to the subject of this thread, the Big Bang was not created but rather caused. It was actually caused by a race called the Obloids who built a device they called the LHC. Once activated and up to power it caused what has become known (in Obloid circles anyway) as "the Big Mistake" rather than "the Big Bang". Looking at the timeline in detail, it was actually a "Big Mistake" immediately followed by a "Big Bang". Unfortunately the nature of their "Big Mistake" is such that it destroyed all evidence of their existence, their science and even their LHC (in fact it destroyed the entire Universe, which fortunately re-formed through a "Big Bang". So we have only a limited basis for our understanding of them and what they did wrong. However, faith is a powerful tool.

Ian
(who does not understand how to do smiley things in posts)
(Oh, and do feel free to delete this post/drivel should this thread get back on track at some point)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 10:37 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
Deimos wrote:
(Oh, and do feel free to delete this post/drivel should this thread get back on track at some point)

Probably should...but your point has been made. Since when has this forum stayed on topic? :wink:

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
:lol: :lol:

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
By the way, Joe, Wilson claims that we can't have an accurate view of the universe without including our ( subjective ) selves in the equation.
This is contradicted by the fact that, through the fossil record, etc, we can reconstruct the way the world was before our species emerged i.e. before a conscious mind evolved to perceive it.
This is another example of the neutrality of enquiry based on experiment and observation.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Wilson espousing the anthropic principle?

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 4:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
brian livesey wrote:
This is another example of the neutrality of enquiry based on experiment and observation.

The point of Wilson's comments is that with QM the observer plays a role in the observation. The observer brings about a state that would not exist had he not made the observation. He is not neutral.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Wilson espousing the anthropic principle?

To be honest, there are so many versions that I could not say whether he is or not. If he is it sounds like a very weak version.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
brian livesey wrote:
Quasar's use of words like "weird" and "bizzare" to describe quantum-mechanical effects, smacks of a quasi-mystical/mystical view of the phenomena.
These phenomena are as natural as the wind and the rain, and we don't describe the latter as being weird and bizzare.

Words like bizzare and weird are nothing to do with quazi-mystical, they are merely words of expression used to describe a personal emotion exactly how Joe puts it. Just words used to describe events which I would consider as having irregular tendancies.
The word mystical without quazi IS a word I would use to describe the Quantum field and there is nothing wrong with this word.
Again I would point out Brian that your own perception of myself and the words I use is gamble, not everyone may have the same perception.
Stella, thanks for pointing out my typo's, I see you have an incessant need to troll through hours of posts looking for spelling mistakes - well, whatever floats your boat dear!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
There's obviously a reason why the presence of the observer in the slit experiment changes the state of play.
It occured to me that, by introducing an observer or detector into the experiment, this would add a local gravitational anomaly and an electromagnetic field ( emanating from the observer's brain or the instrument ). Have these things been considered as being possible sources for the observed effects?

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group