23 May 14
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have deliberately offered a generic description and will leave it at that, it was not my intent to introduce any specific issues as this is not the place for it. The problem may be one of morality, criminality, anything infact.
To say that there should be no rational reason as to why a system functions is to ignore or refuse to acknowledge re ...[text shortened]... ing to a convenient material level, which is fine if you are a scientist, but not a philosopher.
The problem may be one of morality, criminality,
What does the problem of morality or criminality got to do with the interpretation of quantum events and/or quantum behaviour and/or what causes or is behind such quantum behaviour or any physical interpretation for that matter?
To say that there should be no rational reason as to why a system functions is to ignore or refuse to acknowledge reason.
and this “reason” could be something to do with “ morality, criminality”? Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Ok you may describe how the universe functions in mathematical terms but cannot say why it was brought into existence.
Correct, and there is no reason to believe there exists such a “why” in this case.
There is no assumption,
there is no assumption regarding what?
its simply a question.
what is your question? You haven't stated any in this post. Again, your post makes no sense.
What I have done is merely to point out that science is ill fitted for describing morality
Actually, prior to this post in this thread, you didn't. Why would it be a requirement “for describing morality” when interpreting quantum effects/behaviour? Interpretation of physical phenomena is not a moral problem. Yet again, you are not making any sense.
or questions which go beyond what is merely physical.
right, because science cannot deal with stupid assumptions about the existence of things we have no evidence for.
Science cannot, for example, answer equations about Santa or the tooth fairy because it is, as you said, “ ill fitted for” such things i.e. rubbish.
Yes i think I understand what you are saying,
NO, you obviously do NOT!
essentially its an attempt to reduce everything to a convenient material level
NO, I am NOT! Explaining or interpreting physical phenomenon isn't an “attempt” to “reduce everything to a convenient material level”. And what you mean here by "convenient"? "convenient" in what way?
Explaining something physical (such as a quantum event ) is not "trying" to explain why it is physical as opposed to being none physical.
It is an implicit assumption by nearly all people that, if it looks physical and if it behaves as if it is physical and there is no known evidence nor reason to believe that it is none physical, then it is physical and thus we are not "trying" to explain how it can be physical and not none physical because it being physical as opposed to none physical would generally not be in depute here.
Are you trying to say quantum events are none physical? if not, what are you trying to say here?
Originally posted by humyit makes perfect sense and has nothing to do with quantum events and must be seen in the context of what twhitehead and I were discussing. Its rather tiresome if i am honest to have to explain this.The problem may be one of morality, criminality,
What does the problem of morality or criminality got to do with the interpretation of quantum events and/or quantum behaviour and/or what causes or is behind such quantum behaviour or any physical interpretation for that matter?
[quote] To say that there should be no rational reason as ...[text shortened]... g physical phenomenon isn't an “attempt” to “reduce everything to a convenient material level”.
I not only stated a question (why has the universe come into existence) I juxtaposed it beside scientific understanding ( we can explain how it functions) again its rather tiresome and not a little tedious to have to explain it again.
It makes perfect sense. That you have failed to follow the discussion between twhitehead and myself is not my fault. I cannot explain it any simpler than I have, the discussion has moved on from quantum phenomena, how you failed to recognize this, i have no idea.
I think it is an attempt to reduce everything to a convenient physical level, infact it appears to me that you are reticent to go beyond anything other than that which is purely material. You also have the rather annoying habit of quoting my words back to me, please be assured, I am perfectly capable of understanding what i have written even if you are not.
23 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humywhat are you trying to say here? - HumyThe problem may be one of morality, criminality,
What does the problem of morality or criminality got to do with the interpretation of quantum events and/or quantum behaviour and/or what causes or is behind such quantum behaviour or any physical interpretation for that matter?
[quote] To say that there should be no rational reason as ...[text shortened]... Are you trying to say quantum events are none physical? if not, what are you trying to say here?
What I have done is merely to point out that science is ill fitted for describing morality or questions which go beyond what is merely physical. - Robbie
what is it about this statement that you fail to understand? Is it the wording? the inhouse technical terminology? the ambiguous nature of the text? Is it verbose? couched in mysticism? a foreign language perhaps?
23 May 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat post was in response to MY post, NOT twhitehead. If that post was supposed to be in response to twhitehead's, how the hell was I supposed to know! What makes you assume I was reading his posts? That is very stupid of you!
it makes perfect sense and has nothing to do with quantum events and must be seen in the context of what twhitehead and I were discussing. Its rather tiresome if i am honest to have to explain this.
I not only stated a question (why has the universe come into existence) I juxtaposed it beside scientific understanding ( we can explain how it funct ...[text shortened]... ase be assured, I am perfectly capable of understanding what i have written even if you are not.
You haven't answered any of my questions nor clarified anything.
I think it is an attempt to reduce everything to a convenient physical level,
Nope. Read my post again and come back to us.
23 May 14
Originally posted by humysorry but it generally helps if you follow the discussion! its what human communication is all about. Get back to you? If i have failed to understand anything i treat it as a failure to communicate effectively. Perhaps your explanation was lacking? See to it.
That post was in response to MY post, NOT twhitehead. If that post was supposed to be in response to twhitehead's, how the hell was I supposed to know! What makes you assume I was reading his posts? That is very stupid of you!
You haven't answered any of my questions nor clarified anything.
I think it is an attempt to reduce everything to a convenient physical level,
Nope. Read my post again and come back to us.
23 May 14
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understood your statement just fine and then I asked you what has morality got to do with interpreting quantum physics or any other physical system as this was the context you said it in.
what are you trying to say here? - Humy
What I have done is merely to point out that science is ill fitted for describing morality or questions which go beyond what is merely physical. - Robbie
what is it about this statement that you fail to understand? Is it the wording? the inhouse technical terminology? the ambiguous nature of the text? Is it verbose? couched in mysticism? a foreign language perhaps?
You clearly said it in the context of your paragraph;
"...To say that there should be no rational reason as to why a system functions is to ignore or refuse to acknowledge reason. Ok you may describe how the universe functions in mathematical terms but cannot say why it was brought into existence. There is no assumption, its simply a question. To my knowledge I have not denied, nor given the impression that i have denied any facts. What I have done is merely to point out that science is ill fitted for describing morality or questions which go beyond what is merely physical. ..."
the "system" you refer to here is a physical one, right? this IS the context you speak of "morality" in the above, right? Or are you just arbitrary changing the subject completely in mid-paragraph just to screw with our heads?
As usually, you still don't answer my questions.
23 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by humyHumy my illustrious friend, let us take the neurosciences, it is understood that thought processes are the result of electro-chemical activity in the brain, is it not, running along pathways with 'junctions' termed synapses, is it not the case. we are describing a biological process, a system, which is thought to result in. . . . well thoughts. Now the implications of this have moral implications despite being a physical process for it is reasoned that if we are naught but the product of electrochemical impulses, which may suffer aberration at any point, then can we truly be held accountable for our actions over which we may have little control. Now i cite this for you to realize that having knowledge of the system itself is not enough and it generates other issues, ones of philosophical and moral nature so the two spheres of understanding, the physical and the moral are not so remote as one might imagine. Science is excellent for determining how systems work, but is ill fitted for explaining morality, which seems to be a rather worrying trend at the moment.
I understood your statement just fine and then I asked you what has morality got to do with interpreting quantum physics or any other physical system as this was the context you said it in.
You clearly said it in the context of your paragraph;
"...To say that there should be no rational reason as to why a [b]system functions is to ignore or refuse to a ...[text shortened]... mid-paragraph just to screw with our heads?
As usually, you still don't answer my questions.[/b]
I try to answer your questions, if i do not its either because i don't understand what you are asking or i don't know the answer.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can see how you could make a vague 'connection' between what causes our thought and our morality, but not quantum physics and morality which is why your previous posts still don't make any sense whatsoever. Even with the science of neurology, this vague 'connection', if it exists, is extremely tenuous at best because understanding neurology doesn't involve understanding morality and neurology isn't about explaining the difference between right and wrong but rather the behaviour of neurons and the behaviour of neurons is purely physical. Sure your necrology can effect your personal moral beliefs -so what? That still isn't really what neurology is about. Quantum effects in your brain can effect neural behaviour and thus effect your moral beliefs -again, so what? That still isn't really what quantum physics is about.
Humy my illustrious friend, let us take the neurosciences, it is understood that thought processes are the result of electro-chemical activity in the brain, is it not, running along pathways with 'junctions' termed synapses, is it not the case. we are describing a biological process, a system, which is thought to result in. . . . well thoughts. Now ...[text shortened]... f i do not its either because i don't understand what you are asking or i don't know the answer.
Excluding the science of specifically what causes our moral beliefs, science has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. Science is not there to answer the question about what is morally right and wrong (not even the science of specifically what causes our moral beliefs ) nor what we morally SHOULD do and so doesn't answer that. What is morally right and wrong is subjective and thus cannot be answered via evidence and/or reason thus science has nothing to do with it. To criticize any science for not answering moral questions ( do you? ) would be as stupid as to criticize quantum physics for not answering moral questions (do you? ) -in both cases it doesn't make the science false nor morally wrong nor does it violate the science's purpose. Excluding the science of pure mathematics, science is just a tool to understand those aspects of the world that can be rationally and objectively understood and often to make predictions and often to help make technology -but that is all. You cannot validly criticize a tool for not doing something it is not meant to do and science is no exception else you could validly criticize a spanner for not explaining what is morally right or wrong.
24 May 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt really depends on what your goal is but after five minutes in that site I have to tell you that it doesn't seem to good.
ok before i appear any more stupid i am going to read quantum mechanics for total noobs, starting here.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/QuantumMechanicsIntroduction.html
wish me luck.
Another thing you could is to read the blog http://physicsfromthebottomup.blogspot.com/ (shameless plug) and comment away.
24 May 14
7 edits
Originally posted by adam warlock"and comment away" about what is on that link? LOL. I think what is in that link would be way beyond his understanding so, if he did "comment away" about it, he would look extremely silly indeed! Just for starters, like most laypeople, he probably doesn't have adequate understanding of complex numbers and calculus to even to begin to grasp its actual meaning. Even I find it very heavy going and I have actually covered this maths at university. Such quantum mechanical equation and quantum mechanics in general was made and discovered by people a lot smarter than me and even more so than non-scientists like him. Although my understanding is far from incomplete, at least I broadly understand the very basic general principles.
It really depends on what your goal is but after five minutes in that site I have to tell you that it doesn't seem to good.
Another thing you could is to read the blog http://physicsfromthebottomup.blogspot.com/ (shameless plug) and comment away.
24 May 14
Originally posted by humyThere are levels of understanding, if you were a philosopher you would know this. I am not interested in the mathematics, i have already stated this, i am interested in the concepts. The great Einstein himself used many fine illustrations, of sitting in rooms with pretty ladies to explain his idea of relativity, it is not necessary for the layperson to understand the mathematics which confirmed his concepts, is it? and I put it to you that its a very poor teacher who cannot explain the conceptual basis of their idea so that those who are not initiated into its intricacies can grasp it.
"and comment away" about what is on that link? LOL. I think what is in that link would be way beyond his understanding so, if he did "comment away" about it, he would look extremely silly indeed! Just for starters, like most laypeople, he probably doesn't have adequate understanding of complex numbers and calculus to even to begin to grasp its actual meaning. E ...[text shortened]... tanding is far from incomplete, at least I broadly understand the very basic general principles.
24 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockno offense but your site is essentially useless for the layperson. Even the site that I originally cited is considerably better despite its errors.
It really depends on what your goal is but after five minutes in that site I have to tell you that it doesn't seem to good.
Another thing you could is to read the blog http://physicsfromthebottomup.blogspot.com/ (shameless plug) and comment away.
24 May 14
Originally posted by humyWay to kill my mood... 😞😞😞
"and comment away" about what is on that link? LOL. I think what is in that link would be way beyond his understanding so, if he did "comment away" about it, he would look extremely silly indeed! Just for starters, like most laypeople, he probably doesn't have adequate understanding of complex numbers and calculus to even to begin to grasp its actual meaning. E ...[text shortened]... tanding is far from incomplete, at least I broadly understand the very basic general principles.
Do you really think this is too heavy going?
You see one time I managed to teach quantum mechanics to a guy that had some basic knowledge of differential and integral calculus and very few notions of linear algebra. Long story he needed to pass his QM class to get his BSc degree and after my tutoring his final grade was 17 or 18 out of 20.
Naturally that tutoring in person is very different than "tutoring" via a blog, but I'd think that my verbosity would compensate the physical absence.
Anyway, do you think that people with time and a basic knowledge of differential calculus, integral calculus and linear algebra could find that blog useful (excluding undergrad physics and other related fields students)?
24 May 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFeedback taken (and no offense taken, by the way), but let me say a few things.
no offense but your site is essentially useless for the layperson. Even the site that I originally cited is considerably better despite its errors.
First it depends on your goal. If you want to be able to verbally repeat some results of quantum mechanics while not really understanding them then yes of course that my blog is an overkill.
The thing is that point of the blog is to teach people to do quantum mechanics so that they have a working knowledge of what's going on. It is my opinion (and it is just my opinion) that one doesn't need to be an Heisenberg to understand the subject matter of that blog (assuming of course that you have some mathematical knowledge).
Finally the site you originally cited is awful. If you want something that teaches you the basics of Quantum Mechanics without being too heavy on math or on Physics then please take a look at this:
Sean Carrol explanation http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/quantum/ trust me this is very good
or my own simple post on an introduction to quantum mechanics http://physicsfromthebottomup.blogspot.com/2014/03/quantum-mechanics-introduction.html I think that anyone on this site can follow the explanations until the " 2. Basic concepts and preliminary definitions" section.
If it is not too much too ask can you give me your layperson feedback/perspective on these two links?