Ok. I'll do my best to address your points one at a time, Garic.
The "peek a boo" argument was for using the knowledge you have as to what you know to be true in order to determine how you are to intepret new information, in terms of what is sensible. Whether or not we have seen an electron, we should abide by what we know to be true, what is common sense. On the macroscopic level, at least, things don't pop in and out of existence. I disagree with you about the validity of my argument and its conclusions, and from discussing the issues with others more educated in physics than I (which I have done since our argument began) I am not alone in this.
Occam's Razor.
I agree that we should accept what our experiments show us, but we should remain careful about our interpretations of it. I suppose what I am arguing here is what is elegantly demonstrated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his Sherlock Holmes novels. There are, at times, clues and evidence that points to a supernatural explanation. Instead of ignoring the facts, Holmes keeps going, but he is reluctant to give in to superstitious notions. You can tentatively hold on to what you've got (even if it is unsatisfying and seems crazy, as Holmes did when he found the apparent cause was supernatural), but still try your best to work things out. It's not just in fiction where reason wins the day.
So, yes, something can shock you and not make sense and be true. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing for doing your best to make sense of a situation and not checking your brains at the door and believing in something willy nilly.
The discoveries of Quantum Mechanics were mind numbing. Especially around the 1920s. Something might not make any sense, but the more you learn about it, the more sense it should make. It may take a little stretching and expanded knowledge, but it should always make sense in the end. It isn't chance, I think, that people attribute supernatural traits to something we don't really understand that much and are learning a great deal about ... and it isn't surprising that this new, somewhat fuzzy area is used to validate superstitious nonsense.
And, by the way, let's say I am completely wrong about everything I've said about Quantum Mechanics. The logic you use is something like this: the world that quantum mechanics shows us looks magical in nature, so, therefore, a lot of stuff considered magical must be true! It's associative rather than logical, poetic rather than scientific. It's like saying because the two particles rotate correspondingly with no apparent physical link, our minds are psychicly linked to each other and we're connected by one mind. Nope. Doesn't work that way. A strong correspondence has to be shown between one area and another other than the subjects being similar to one another (sharing the idea of connectivity between them).
More on common sense: common sense was the basis of Einstein's conclusions from his thought experiments, so I am glad that he used it. If he didn't stick to what made sense to him, we may not have many of his accomplishments.
So you found the article a few sizes too small. Ok. I am not surprised.
They are particles, not waves. Light behaves, at least according to Mr. Feynman, as particles in ways that leads him to believe that photons are indeed particles. (And I understand that the particles do not move stictly like billiard balls.... but I have seen physicists I trust more than you use the analogy for teaching purposes.) The author of the skeptic article was using an analogy, one that I found pretty informative and made a great deal of sense. If you can propose something, from your educated point of view, that makes more sense, I'd love to read it.
It seems you go with the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations.
Feynman addresses the phenomenon in the two-slit experiment in the lectures given the links on the skeptic article's web-page. It was interesting to watch. What he says matches much more what David Morgan said in his article than the sketchy information you post here. You're certainly more educated than I am in the subject, but from where I am standing, you appear to have reached the wrong conclusions. And it's always possible for a well educated person to process good information in bad ways.
Believe it or not, I read and consider what you say and earmark it in my mind to see if it will jive with what I experience in the future. My bet is it won't, but that is just a bet.
My emphasis on credentials re. Chopra was for the reason that because he is a Dr. and talks about Quantum physics... some believe that he is an authority on the subject (I did for a while). He's not.
As for myself, I am no authority. I don't publish books with the word "Quantum" in the title. I hope this information is enough to help you understand my reasons for emphasizing qualifications. I can only seek to learn as much as I can in a realistic fashion and do my best to have an accurate view of the world. My educational background is in Communications, English Writing, and Computer Science. I have Bachelor degrees in each. My knoweldge of physics comes from my own personal interest in the subject and self-education (aside from rudimentary education for high-school and university).
As for me parroting ideas, no. I have the same opinions as the person who wrote the article. Why would I link you to an article that stated opinions I disagreed with? The author appeared to be much more knowledgeable in the subject than I am, and he put it more lucidly than I could. And I have to say that I did learn some very interesting things from it.
As for mere belief, I continue to check what I learned against knowledge I continue to find. If I find something that clashes, rings untrue, then I update my knowledge and change my opinions. My beliefs change over time based on what I find to be accurate, pertinent, and helpful. I'll take a 180 turn (a while ago I'd be arguing your side of the issue) when I have to. My beliefs change not based on comfort but on what I find to be reasonable and accurate, do yours?
This is why I was so mad at Chopra, I actually believed that stuff and would argue for it at one time, until I started to sit down and really think about what I was being told, and then sought more information. You don't have to imagine my reaction. You've seen it.
I go with what Schrodinger believed about the whole observation collapsing the waveform thing. It's silliness. A simple dose of common sense (and also some knowledge of philosophy, cognitive science, and general psychology) shows you where Heisenberg and others made their mistakes.
It IS very much about our measuring tools and how we think about things. It IS about confusing a mathematical formula with reality.
Things are no more or less in a state of non-existence than the average American family with 2.5 kids has an indeterminate child that suddenly appears or disappears based on whether or not you visit the home of a specific family in order to observe them.
Some things don't make sense, sure. But you know what? A lot of the times they do. And the goal is to find out how to think about what is in ways that our reason can manipulate and understand. Otherwise, it's voodoo.
Special universes that only the initiated and trained can perceive, huh? The argument from special knowledge is not a new one. You may be right, but then again, you also may be deluded.
As for the openness of my mind and heart, you don't know what you're talking about.
It's a nice little web you've constructed. If you don't do the experiments, you'll never know. If you do the experiments you'll never know. Nice.
How is my aggressiveness parasitic? Am I sucking your chi through the internet?
As to my bet....
Actually, it's like saying, "You can create stuff with your mind? Then show me!" I'm not asking for a double-blind study... or for the double-binds you describe in order to explain why people don't believe in this stuff. I am asking for something that would convince me that there is something to it, other than wishful thinking.
You know, I meant it mostly as a joke. But apparently you take it as an opportunity to interpret it as something that defines absolutely my point of view and ability to think.
Hey, come up with a counter offer. My point is, if you can create stuff with your mind, you can create stuff with you mind. Why not prove it to me in some concrete way without weasely arguments about how you can't while arguing, essentially, that you can.
And a p-test. Sure I know what it is. That's when they give you the little cup when you go to the doctor, right?
You know, even from here, I can detect a lot of negative vibes in your aura. I think you might want to harmonize your charkas with the morphic field of unlimited, creative intelligence before continuing with this conversation. You're at risk of having the negativity put your existence into an indeterminate state until someone comes by and observes you.
[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 28, 2005).]
