quote:
Originally posted by babayada:
I would like to examine more fully the context of that quote, but as far as I have read, his philosophy on the subject is bunk.But any person with a developed brain learns object permanence. When mommy and daddy go "peek a boo!" and then cover their faces with their hands, they don't disappear from existence. They are hidden behind their hands. The same with position and velocity.
Well, the problem with your argument, is that no one has ever
"seen" an electron. Electrons are only detected to exist
through the filtering mechanism of high-precision laboratory
equipment, which can provide various clues as to what they
are, but do not, in any sense, provide the observer with a first-
hand glimpse of an actual electron.
Therefore, your analogy is invalid, as are the
conclusions you drew from it.
Additionally, you seem to be suggesting with this argument,
that any scientific result, which violates the laws of
"common sense" as they appear to our five senses, is
(necessarily) pseudoscience and is invalid...
Well all I can say is, I'm glad that this point-of-view
didn't carry the day when Einstein's Theory of Special
Relativity arrived on the
scene, in the early part of the last century.
As you probably know, many of the conclusions of special
relativity, completely violate the reality-picture afforded
by our naive experiential perception of the world through the
medium of our five senses.
(Or maybe there's a skeptical website somewhere, that argues
against the conclusions of Special Relativity...?)
I.e., everyday reality suggests that the mass of an object stays constant
even if it moves relative to an observer. It would
also seem plausible, from everyday common sense, and the notions derived
from our senses, that velocities are
additive; this, if I am moving at a speed A and I throw an object
with a speed B, the velocty of that object as measured by a
stationary obeserver will be A + B. This isn't true either, it is
only approximately true, for speeds much less than the speed of light.
Profound scientific discoveries, are always about
violating our notions of "ordinary common sense," and without
exception, there is always a pool of sceptics who decry them
on this basis. (Just as there was a LARGE group of people who considered the Special Theory to be rubbish, until it was repeatedly confirmed experimentally.) However, as in the case of special relativity, the
"focusing mechanism" provided by advanced laboratory experimentation
has confirmed these un-commonplace notions, to be
correct. Thank God there are indivduals wiling to
inquire into the nature if reality, no matter how paradoxical
or bewildering the results may seem....
quote:
Try this on for size:
http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/quantum.htm
I've tried it on for size...and its a couple of sizes too small,
unfortunately. This guy seems to be proposing the idea
that electrons are merely "flying billiard balls", that always
travel with a definite trajectory, and not anything else.
Unfortunately this does little to explain the two-slit experiment;
in fact, the two-slit experiment, which any physics major
has contact with in his freshman year at college, completely
invalidates the notion that electrons are merely "tiny billiard
balls", flying around with definite trajectory.
Here's a description:
Two streams of electrons are fired at a screen, which can register
their impact and measure the number of electrons hitting the screen. A barrier
is placed in between the electron source and the screen, and two small holes,
just large enough for the electrons to pass through, are
made in the screen. When both sources are firing, let's say that
a value of 60% of the elctrons are found to arrive at the
incandescent screen on the other side of the border.
When one of the holes is covered, however, it is found thsat a
GREATER PERCENTAGE of electrons hits the incandescent screen.
This completely violates the notion that electrons are "tiny billiard balls" for they
are obviously interfering with each other in some wave like
way, when both slits are open...even materialistic observers
are baffled by this, and quantum physics has yet to really
explain the "wave-particle duality"; i.e., sometimes electrons seem
to behave like particles, sometimes they seem to behave like
waves.
So the a priori notion that electrons are tiny billiard balls, and nothing more,
is totally invalid,
and is contradicted by the facts of experience.
Where did that idea come from, anyway? Why is that more
sensible or intelligent than another expalanation? Because its
easier to understand? That's a pretty poor criteria for the
validity of a scientific assumption, if you ask me.)
BTW, what are your credentials and education in this area?
You earlier attacked Deepak Chopra (whose books I've never read,
and whose views on quantum physics I am completely unfamilar with)
for not having credentials....Then you invalidated the statements of one of
the scientists who originated the theory (and with that comment, by extension
you invalidated the ideas of Niels Bohr, one of the greatest scientific
geniuses of the 20th century, who said..."Anyone who is not shocked by
quantum mechanics has failed to understand it.")...
So which is it? Do credentials and university education matter, or do they
not?
Or do only consider that someone has "credentials" in this area
if they write for a skeptical website??
If so, this is a perfect example of "mere belief", which you usually criticize.
BTW, your evaluation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the reason for the Uncertainty relation, are not correct; nor are the opinions of that guy on the website....its the wave-like nature of the medium used for measurement, as well as the inherently wave-like properties of the "particle" being measured, that is the true source of the uncertainty, not the size of the particles, or the limits of the measuring equipment...
I'll explain it more later, but I only have so much time and space here....
(edit)...the area
of experimental results derived from investigation of the focusing
mechanism provided by high tech laboratory equipment..you have attacked others and parrot what
the skeptical websites say, even though they **edit*
..don't necessarily have the proper credentials for discussing these matters.
And likewise, with technologies like yoga, qigong, meditation, and other exercises
which "focus" the mechanism of human consciousness, and thereby disclose
greater, and in some cases, non-"common-sense" truths about the different levels of reality, you *edit*are don't necessarily have experience with those either.
The spiritual reality
is not a matter of mere belief; the great truths of the wisdom traditions
are not afforded by people who are merely "offering an opinion", without any experience.
They are offered by those who have actually DONE THE EXPERIMENTS (the experiments being, yoga/qigong/
meditation poractice, for 20-30 years, for an entire lifetime, until
the "focusing mechanism" is precise enough to yield information about
the higher subjective truths of reality.
(For more information about the difference between TRUE spiritual
practitioners (i.e., those who have actually DONE THE EXPERIMENTS), and those merely offering mythological beliefs and opinions,
see Ken Wilbur and his commentary on the "pre-trans fallacy", an error
indulged in by skeptics, postmodern poststructuralists, and other naive realists...)
You have not done these experiments... therefore
all your cynical criticism and aggressiveness towards
those who are actively pursuing these options, *edit* not as valuable as it could be.
What you should do, instead surfing the internet
and trying to talk down to people who are
engaged in "the great experiment" (of human consciousness), or instead of indiscriminately criticising
someone who offers something besides the "billiard ball"
theory of reality, is go out and experiment with a
movement or meditation practice for yourself, for about five years. Daily.
With sincere dedication, and open to whatever phenomena arises, and whatever
truths and levels of reality begin to unfold.
Your whole disposition will change thereby, and only in that case will your views on the
matter have any legitmacy, or claim to truth-value.
[This message has been edited by garics (edited September 02, 2005).]
