Sacred Science link

Originally posted by finnegan
There are some phenomena to which QM applies and others to which Classical Physics applies.

People have always liked using analogies to account for the way things appear to be. The clockwork analogy had its day long ago.

Whether QM actually does eliminate arguments for determinism is a matter of opinion but I would not agree that QM is the only way it is displacing critical thought and authentic expertise in too many aspects of modern life.

In philosophy and science, (some would see that science arose from philosophy, and is more akin to science than religion) there is always the professional expertise, but it is not godlike. Few, if any, are masters in many fields. That does not mean intelligent discussion and putting forth of logical arguments on the basis of accepted observed phenomenon is invalid.


>"QM does not falsify or contradict Classical Physics. Indeed they are perfectly consistent with each other. Which one scientists use depends on the question they are examining."

Pardon my limitations but I cannot, from a logical perspective see how you can say they are perfectly consistent, or there is no contradiction.

They are indeed using and approaching each differently because they ARE very different and NOT perfectly consistent. And different use and method of approach is not the same as a resolved and coherent integrated meaning of the varying phenomenon. Many use it to great efffect who differ seriously in interpretation. It is patently still not resolved, still a principal and serious area discussion with theories of interpretation many, with ongoing exploration, bit by bit yielding important additional information.

The "mumbo jumbo" tag is tired. Stop pointing to instances of populist errors and abuses as a generalising method of getting out of an argument and focus on the educated and intelligent participants in the discussion, many highly intelligent science respecting experts in their respective fields.

It's not just quantum scientists by the way, other disciplines like chemistry, neurophysiology, genetics, and evolutionary biology are contributing serious discussion on the impact of quantum non-classical findings. It is this ridiculing dismissive attitude that displaces critical thinking.

If you are making bald statements like they are "perfectly consistent" could you enlighten me further and others, such as those in books on my shelves - Feynmann, Bohr, Bohm, Einstein, Schroedinger, De Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, Eddington - by explaining the "perfect consistency" in the numerous double split experiments, still going on. They are pretty easy to understand in their set up, but not so their outcomes.

Originally posted by Taoman
In philosophy and science, (some would see that science arose from philosophy, and is more akin to science than religion) there is always the professional expertise, but it is not godlike. Few, if any, are masters in many fields. That does not mean intelligent discussion and putting forth of logical arguments on the basis of accepted observed phenomenon is ...[text shortened]... oing on. They are pretty easy to understand in their set up, but not so their outcomes.

Yes, we've played it safe for long enough, it is time to take a more measured approached to the scientific method. You tend to find when scientists aren't threatened by getting killed and let free to experiment with whatever premises they try (as long as they a harm minimized), they will come up with some real inovative ideas for our new millenia.

One of the latest books on the quantum enigma, with credibility attached.
I'd like to get that.
http://quantumenigma.com/

A remarkable and readable presentation…
Charles Townes: Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics

This book is unique. …clearest expositions I have ever seen.
George Greenstein: Professor of Astronomy, Amherst College,
Co-author of The Quantum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

…an immensely important and exciting book.
Raymond Chester Russ, Editor, Journal of Mind and Behavior

…simplest correct demonstration of the Great Quantum Dilemma….starkly expose the hidden skeleton in the physicist’s closet.
Nick Herbert: Author, Quantum Reality

Originally posted by Taoman
In philosophy and science, (some would see that science arose from philosophy, and is more akin to science than religion) there is always the professional expertise, but it is not godlike. Few, if any, are masters in many fields. That does not mean intelligent discussion and putting forth of logical arguments on the basis of accepted observed phenomenon is ...[text shortened]... oing on. They are pretty easy to understand in their set up, but not so their outcomes.

You seem confused. It is clearly the case that QM describes phenomena that are not explained within Classical Physics and vica versa. That means it is important to employ the right methods for the problem addressed. For example. Penrose and Hawking famously attempted to explain the initial phase of the Big Bang using Relativity / Classical Physics and reached erroneous conclusions ( as they themselves later reported) because in that initial moment of time QM is the appropriate tool. So in this sense, they are not compatible and they are very unlike each other.

However, it is not the case that Classical Physics or Relativity have been refuted by QM. They remain valid in their appropriate applications.

It may become possible to use QM to explain phenomena currently within the scope of Classical Physics or vica versa - that would be the unified theory of everything to which science aspires but which it has not yet achieved.

Originally posted by finnegan
You seem confused. It is clearly the case that QM describes phenomena that are not explained within Classical Physics and vica versa. That means it is important to employ the right methods for the problem addressed. For example. Penrose and Hawking famously attempted to explain the initial phase of the Big Bang using Relativity / Classical Physics and reac ...[text shortened]... be the unified theory of everything to which science aspires but which it has not yet achieved.

The observations are not consistent and they are contradictory, answering your original statement. This is not the same as saying they refute classical physics.

Perhaps the confusion is one of reference. I understand the "contradictory" and "inconsistent" to be applied to the observations themselves - they are inconsistent and contradictory to themselves in a very weird way. Whether they refute the laws and logic of classical physics is not resolved in either way, confirmation or denial.

The contradictory and inconsistent observations pose difficult questions, still being discussed. A quick peruse of current books being published and the qualifications of their authors on Amazon or elsewhere will show the debate on the inconsistencies and contradictions is intelligent, alive and well.

Certainly they do not obstruct the application of classical physics, which now has outcomes even better when complemented by those quantum findings, inexplicable as they are.

I repeatedly encounter the implied impression that the explanatory matter is resolved in the classical scientific community. It isn't, it has simply been shifted to a discussion of relative methodology of observation and application, as here.

From the start of quantum discoveries methods of observation were different and greatly discussed and unresolved as an explanation. I think the classicists have a block to considering beyond classical interpretations because it necessarily entails descriptions that sound mystical and connected to consciousness in some way. There is a similar divide as to the nature of consciousness itself,reductive or primary. 'Primary' of course has mystical implications too.

I do get confused and I do examine that possibility from your response. I think that the imprecise application or interpretation of terminology is the cause of confusion here.

Originally posted by Taoman
The observations are not consistent and they are contradictory, answering your original statement. This is not the same as saying they refute classical physics. ...
I repeatedly encounter the implied impression that the explanatory matter is resolved in the classical scientific community. It isn't, it has simply been shifted to a discussion of relative meth ...[text shortened]... ications too.

I do get confused and I do examine that possibility from your response. ..

Confusion need not be infectious. Just because, as you say, there are some mystrious and confusing issues provoked by QM, this does not mean that all of science is thrown into confusion. [By the way I never said or implied that Classical Physics can explain or account for QM. I said the opposite.]

Building castles in the air can be achieved by threading together a sequence of weakly supported assertions and if you are a good talker this can seem pretty interesting for a while. The person who picks out the fragility of your links is then accused of lacking imagination.

For example, in your latest post you try to sweep together a number of ideas as follows:

I think the classicists have a block to considering beyond classical interpretations because it necessarily entails descriptions that sound mystical and connected to consciousness in some way. There is a similar divide as to the nature of consciousness itself,reductive or primary. 'Primary' of course has mystical implications too.

I am aware that some people invoke mystical notions to account for consciousness and some imagine it may be accounted for in some obscure way by QM but there are plenty of far more down to earth and sensible approaches that work well and build on practical, experimental evidence. The sentences I quote here may sound interesting or impressive to some readers. To me they sound like a random assembly of ill considered brain waves.

A man may imagine things that are false but he can only understand things that are true. (Isaac Newton)

Originally posted by finnegan
Confusion need not be infectious. Just because, as you say, there are some mystrious and confusing issues provoked by QM, this does not mean that all of science is thrown into confusion. [By the way I never said or implied that Classical Physics can explain or account for QM. I said the opposite.]

Building castles in the air can be achieved by threading ...[text shortened]... imagine things that are false but he can only understand things that are true. (Isaac Newton)

"QM does not falsify or contradict Classical Physics. Indeed they are perfectly consistent with each other. Which one scientists use depends on the question they are examining."

This is the statement I am referring to (quoted again) principally in my discussion, discussion I won't repeat for fear of getting dizzy. You are quite right that statement doesn't say Classical physics explains or accounts for QM.

Instead of discussing arguments you didn't say and I never said you did, it would have been helpful to answer what I am saying about the statement you DID say as quoted above. In that statement, because you use two terms "falsify" and "contradict", and they are not equal terms, I agree with the first term but not the second. Because observations and analyses contradict each other does not mean necessarily that they therefore immediately falsify. Usually it means the next stage is to examine if the contradiction is just apparent, with hidden factors, or if it is actual, to then try and integrate the contradictions with an expanded theory.

That's what I think is happening at the moment, including the non-classical mystical sounding options. Nothing has clearly falsified anything yet either way you see it, but I see contradictions of observations all over the place. If you stiil maintain that there isn't and all is "perfectly consistent", so be it. I disagree.
Let's stop, this is not going anywhere.

"...and that reminds me of the claim that if you disagree with a psychoanalyst then this is due to repression and unconscious resistance."

It often actually is. Not always. A good psychoanalyst is there for that very reason, to help you be aware of your unconscious defenses and how you are stuffing your life up thereby. The analyst uses the immediate reaction between the client and him/herself as a door to seeing that. Many think analysis is bunkum initially, until they see more clearly. But it takes too long and is very expensive.