Why must we succumb to ambiguous language in this way? For example:
If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described.This quote from Heisenberg refers to "elementary particle[s]" and not to all of reality. Whether elementary particles exist in the definitive way that we imagine is an interesting debate, and Quantum Mechanics helps to work with such matters, but it does not apply to the natural world at the scales in which human life operates. When it comes to my computer screen, I know exactly where it is and what speed (zero miles per hour) it is moving at. Indeed, I not only do not require Quantum Mechanics to understand this, I do not even need Relativity. Good old fashioned Newtonian physics will do the job with complete accuracy.
Mysticism may have a place in human psychology but getting confused about the specific meanings of language is not mysticism - it is just being confused. Misusing popular notions about QM is not mysticism - it is mumbo jumbo.
Originally posted by finneganWhat they are doing is grousing about the language. The people from that site have no more insight to what the universe is about than anyone else.
Why must we succumb to ambiguous language in this way? For example:If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described.This quote from Heisenberg re ...[text shortened]... s just being confused. Misusing popular notions about QM is not mysticism - it is mumbo jumbo.
Such sites are having a go at what the findings of quantum science mean as to the nature of existence. The more serious ones, usually associated with certain scientists themselves acknowledge that our day to day living continue oblivious of the odd behaviors and observations at the quantum level.
But at the same time the findings of quantum physics has been and still is the source of amazing advancements of modern technology. Its application directly and majorly effects our day to day existence and advances our knowledge of such things we thought we knew everything about, such as chemical valent bonding.
Most scientists follow the standard line that we can work with "it" anyway, even we can't fully explain it - and they still can't. I have lost count of the various takes on explaining quantum observations. Nothing is resolved yet.
Ok. But here were are on a "Spiritual Forum", here and in philosophy discussions the observations of the quantum phenomenon directly impinge on what this fantasmagoria actually is and how it has arisen and its meaning. Is it all just a clockwork and are we without freedom, or not? This is just one age-long central philosophical question the observations have to do with.
Science does itself a disfavour if it abandons its quest to understand these observations of wave-particles that pop in and out of existence, and collapse from superpositions, whatever that is - all we have is mathematical waveforms, a conceptual "entity"!
These proven observations no longer logically present with the qualifications of existence taken as read by old science. Thankfully many still are pursuing the quest. Of course, we can adopt falsely assurance we have sorted it all out, or just ignore it all and carry on - and in the meantime mutter bunkum and poppycock at those who don't.
Because no-one really understands it still, I find it hard to disagree or agree in any hard manner with what they say. but I like exploring a most unusual universe. The various answers do indeed start sounding mystical, which remains the central core of the discomfort felt by those that want to see a nice solid final particle thingy somewhere, as in the clockwork universe of Newton. It just ain't anymore.
Originally posted by TaomanIn my experience they do not. They take the fact that quantum mechanics is mysterious, then try to tie it in to 'mysticism' based in the fact that both are mysterious. This is just as stupid as saying 'Catholicism is regular, and Newtons laws of gravity are regular, therefore there must be a relationship between the two'.
Such sites are having a go at what the findings of quantum science mean as to the nature of existence.
Originally posted by finneganNot complete accuracy. Only accuracy up to the point where relativity and quantum mechanics kick in.
Good old fashioned Newtonian physics will do the job with complete accuracy.
I also disagree with those that say that quantum mechanics has very little impact on daily life. What people don't seem to realize is that the nature of light is entirely quantum and cannot be reasonably explained in any other way. The various wave theories that preceded quantum mechanics work very well for some aspects of light but do not effectively explain all its properties. The moment you ask yourself why light slows down in glass you have to use quantum mechanics to properly understand it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, we can agree that quantum science is mysterious at least. The qualities of these sites vary greatly and there are many that are simplistic and make inaccurate and too definite connections and conclusions. Others, and the famous quantum physicists they quote, do see and more accuratelydiscuss the challenge all this makes to the clockwork universe.
In my experience they do not. They take the fact that quantum mechanics is mysterious, then try to tie it in to 'mysticism' based in the fact that both are mysterious. This is just as stupid as saying 'Catholicism is regular, and Newtons laws of gravity are regular, therefore there must be a relationship between the two'.
Any postulation that goes beyond the classical assumptions - which they must, right or wrong because the mysterious behaviour clearly contradicts classical physics - is regarded as "mystical' (horror!) and rejected. Thus the mysterious non-classical findings are ignored and all (save some) pretend the old paradigm is the way things are. But they aren't.
Originally posted by TaomanThere are some phenomena to which QM applies and others to which Classical Physics applies. 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.
Well, we can agree that quantum science is mysterious at least. The qualities of these sites vary greatly and there are many that are simplistic and make inaccurate and too definite connections and conclusions. Others, and the famous quantum physicists they quote, do see and more accurately discuss the challenge all this makes to the clockwork universe.
A ...[text shortened]... ignored and all (save some) pretend the old paradigm is the way things are. But they aren't.
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 to attack determinism.
QM is not the only model that goes beyond "classical assumptions." By that I assume you refer to the very reductionist approach of Positivists. I suspect that Positivism is no longer a majority way of thinking in most fields of science.
Scientists may indeed have immense expertise in their own field(s) but that does not (necessarily) make them experts when they move into quite different disciplines, including philosophy, religion and social theory. They repeatedly make glaring philosophical errors when trying to impress us by their all conquering wisdom.
Whatever scientists know or claim to know, popular science is sometimes promoted by people lacking expertise in both science and philosophy and some even lack the capacity for critical thinking. There is a massive market for mumbo jumbo - it is displacing critical thought and authentic expertise in too many aspects of modern life.
Originally posted by finneganThen again, what would one expect from a link with 'sacred science' in it? 😕
Why must we succumb to ambiguous language in this way? For example:If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described.This quote from Heisenberg re ...[text shortened]... s just being confused. Misusing popular notions about QM is not mysticism - it is mumbo jumbo.
This reminds me of the Buddhist story of "Kayupsha'a smile".
hundreds had gathered for a sermon from the Buddha. After waiting a while the Buddha said nothing but merely raised one hand holding a flower. Kayupsha instantly understood the meaning behind the sermon/gesture. Apparently everyone else was left frustrated , not understanding.
And still this is a story of success. A successful transmission of understanding from Buddha to monk.
(Actually this story also applies to Taomans other new thread about doing less to achieve more)
Originally posted by karoly aczel...and that reminds me of the claim that if you disagree with a psychoanalyst then this is due to repression and unconscious resistance.
This reminds me of the Buddhist story of "Kayupsha'a smile".
hundreds had gathered for a sermon from the Buddha. After waiting a while the Buddha said nothing but merely raised one hand holding a flower. Kayupsha instantly understood the meaning behind the sermon/gesture. Apparently everyone else was left frustrated , not understanding.
And still th ...[text shortened]... ctually this story also applies to Taomans other new thread about doing less to achieve more)