|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 12:32:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes.. it's an effect of the Uncertainty Principle, which as its name suggests is not so certain as to be functionally understood.. the Uncertainty Principle, is often invoked where there is not sufficient 'certainty' to substantiate the intended theory.. a self-fulfilling principle/prophesy.. Be well.. True that it is often mis-cited but the uncertainty principle in and of itself does call into question any intuitive, common-sense perception of material reality. In short, what you measure always involves a duality of parameters, and the more you know about one of them, the less you know about the other. The counter-intuitive nature of this can be illustrated by imagining putting a particle in a smaller and smaller set of boxes -- the smaller the box, the faster the particle will move around. It's not possible to make a prisoner of an electron. "The more you know, the less you know".
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 6, 2013 13:49:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. No, Bill.. that's your imagined justification for the debate you want to have.. i have a Meade Schmidt-Cassegrain hybrid reflector telescope, and a tracking motor/tripod system, see, i'm talking 'science' and there's no debate "by definition" or otherwise.. though i can imagine you are developing a strategy for creating conflict which you can label 'debate'.. Be well.. Describing a scientific instrument would be more along the lines of a chat about technology. Here's an example of an opening to what was a scientific debate 500 years ago: "does the Sun revolve around the Earth?". I have repeatedly opened discussions about science that need not be confrontational of take on a debate format, here's an example: I agree with the current understanding regarding the double slit experiment, that there is the possibility of a non-physical catalyst than could influence the results, further i suspect that consciousness/intention might be integral to the experiment's results, and.. i am also looking with an open and curious mind for other factors that could explain those results since the non-physical explanation is not conclusive.. The non-physical explanation may actually be a symptom of forces and physical systems we are not yet capable of observing or measuring.. the assumption that current technology and understanding represents all that 'is', is itself folly, and failure to continue exploring what is being revealed by the evolution of observation and measurement is analogous to believing that we live on a 'flat earth', and.. asserting a non-physical component as 'the' solution for the results of the 'double slit split' is analogous to believing all the scary stories about sea monsters so you won't go sailing and fall off the edge of the earth.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2013 16:08:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes.. it's an effect of the Uncertainty Principle, which as its name suggests is not so certain as to be functionally understood.. the Uncertainty Principle, is often invoked where there is not sufficient 'certainty' to substantiate the intended theory.. a self-fulfilling principle/prophesy.. Be well.. True that it is often mis-cited but the uncertainty principle in and of itself does call into question any intuitive, common-sense perception of material reality. In short, what you measure always involves a duality of parameters, and the more you know about one of them, the less you know about the other. The counter-intuitive nature of this can be illustrated by imagining putting a particle in a smaller and smaller set of boxes -- the smaller the box, the faster the particle will move around. It's not possible to make a prisoner of an electron. "The more you know, the less you know". Yeah, No matter how many times sciences "halves" the gap to the ineffable, it can never actually "get there" so to speak. But the exploration does reveal wonder and opens diversity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2013 16:59:41 GMT -5
True that it is often mis-cited but the uncertainty principle in and of itself does call into question any intuitive, common-sense perception of material reality. In short, what you measure always involves a duality of parameters, and the more you know about one of them, the less you know about the other. The counter-intuitive nature of this can be illustrated by imagining putting a particle in a smaller and smaller set of boxes -- the smaller the box, the faster the particle will move around. It's not possible to make a prisoner of an electron. "The more you know, the less you know". Yeah, No matter how many times sciences "halves" the gap to the ineffable, it can never actually "get there" so to speak. But the exploration does reveal wonder and opens diversity. The value of science is not in what it knows, but in it's pursuit of what it doesn't know... Some folks already know, so there's no room or interest left for not knowing...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 17:15:55 GMT -5
True that it is often mis-cited but the uncertainty principle in and of itself does call into question any intuitive, common-sense perception of material reality. In short, what you measure always involves a duality of parameters, and the more you know about one of them, the less you know about the other. The counter-intuitive nature of this can be illustrated by imagining putting a particle in a smaller and smaller set of boxes -- the smaller the box, the faster the particle will move around. It's not possible to make a prisoner of an electron. "The more you know, the less you know". Yeah, No matter how many times sciences "halves" the gap to the ineffable, it can never actually "get there" so to speak. But the exploration does reveal wonder and opens diversity. Yeah, no way to use information to transcend information but that asymptotic walk can be awe inspiring.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 17:18:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. Describing a scientific instrument would be more along the lines of a chat about technology. Here's an example of an opening to what was a scientific debate 500 years ago: "does the Sun revolve around the Earth?". I have repeatedly opened discussions about science that need not be confrontational of take on a debate format, here's an example: I agree with the current understanding regarding the double slit experiment, that there is the possibility of a non-physical catalyst than could influence the results, further i suspect that consciousness/intention might be integral to the experiment's results, and.. i am also looking with an open and curious mind for other factors that could explain those results since the non-physical explanation is not conclusive.. The non-physical explanation may actually be a symptom of forces and physical systems we are not yet capable of observing or measuring.. the assumption that current technology and understanding represents all that 'is', is itself folly, and failure to continue exploring what is being revealed by the evolution of observation and measurement is analogous to believing that we live on a 'flat earth', and.. asserting a non-physical component as 'the' solution for the results of the 'double slit split' is analogous to believing all the scary stories about sea monsters so you won't go sailing and fall off the edge of the earth.. Be well.. From studying science and the history of it, it seems to me that the process of science is steeped in debate. It is my understanding based on those studies that scientists don't debate ideas that are well-settled. In considering the matter intellectually, I would express the belief that the dashed expectation of discovery of an atomic material entity independent of the observation of it is one of those ideas.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 6, 2013 17:59:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I have repeatedly opened discussions about science that need not be confrontational of take on a debate format, here's an example: I agree with the current understanding regarding the double slit experiment, that there is the possibility of a non-physical catalyst than could influence the results, further i suspect that consciousness/intention might be integral to the experiment's results, and.. i am also looking with an open and curious mind for other factors that could explain those results since the non-physical explanation is not conclusive.. The non-physical explanation may actually be a symptom of forces and physical systems we are not yet capable of observing or measuring.. the assumption that current technology and understanding represents all that 'is', is itself folly, and failure to continue exploring what is being revealed by the evolution of observation and measurement is analogous to believing that we live on a 'flat earth', and.. asserting a non-physical component as 'the' solution for the results of the 'double slit split' is analogous to believing all the scary stories about sea monsters so you won't go sailing and fall off the edge of the earth.. Be well.. The process of science is steeped in debate, but scientists don't debate ideas that are well-settled, such as the dashed expectation of discovery of a atomic material entity independent of the observation of it. I'm not really certain of your meaning, since the discovery would very likely include the observation, rendering your statement recursively redundant.. that science has found an explanation is that is sufficiently pliable to account for variables too difficult or costly to pursue, that explanation might be seasoned with some 'confirmation bias'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 18:03:05 GMT -5
Greetings.. The process of science is steeped in debate, but scientists don't debate ideas that are well-settled, such as the dashed expectation of discovery of a atomic material entity independent of the observation of it. I'm not really certain of your meaning, since the discovery would very likely include the observation, rendering your statement recursively redundant.. that science has found an explanation is that is sufficiently pliable to account for variables too difficult or costly to pursue, that explanation might be seasoned with some 'confirmation bias'.. Be well.. Well you're pre-supposing such a discovery, but that's just a hope, an expectation, so the redundancy is only a potential. Yes, of course, the low likelihood of debate over questions that are considered well settled involves the confirmation bias that the question is settled, but then again, science is as much about consensus as it is about debate.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 6, 2013 18:20:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I'm not really certain of your meaning, since the discovery would very likely include the observation, rendering your statement recursively redundant.. that science has found an explanation is that is sufficiently pliable to account for variables too difficult or costly to pursue, that explanation might be seasoned with some 'confirmation bias'.. Be well.. Well you're pre-supposing such a discovery, but that's just a hope, an expectation, so the redundancy is only a potential. Yes, of course, the low likelihood of debate over questions that are considered well settled involves the confirmation bias that the question is settled, but then again, science is as much about consensus as it is about debate. I am neither presupposing nor attaching.. i'm paying attention.. "well settled" sounds a lot like 'attachment' doesn't it.. No, science isn't "as much about consensus as it is about debate", consensus references agreement where there are optional outcomes.. if you are looking for the speed of light, consensus that the speed of peanut-butter is identical will not suffice.. consensus that the world was flat was not science, it was observation in the absence of scientific method.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2013 19:19:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. Well you're pre-supposing such a discovery, but that's just a hope, an expectation, so the redundancy is only a potential. Yes, of course, the low likelihood of debate over questions that are considered well settled involves the confirmation bias that the question is settled, but then again, science is as much about consensus as it is about debate. I am neither presupposing nor attaching.. i'm paying attention.. "well settled" sounds a lot like 'attachment' doesn't it.. No, science isn't "as much about consensus as it is about debate", consensus references agreement where there are optional outcomes.. if you are looking for the speed of light, consensus that the speed of peanut-butter is identical will not suffice.. consensus that the world was flat was not science, it was observation in the absence of scientific method.. Be well.. True that, there is general consensus in creationism but evolution has proven that to be flat-earthism...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2013 9:48:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. Well you're pre-supposing such a discovery, but that's just a hope, an expectation, so the redundancy is only a potential. Yes, of course, the low likelihood of debate over questions that are considered well settled involves the confirmation bias that the question is settled, but then again, science is as much about consensus as it is about debate. I am neither presupposing nor attaching.. i'm paying attention.. "well settled" sounds a lot like 'attachment' doesn't it.. No, science isn't "as much about consensus as it is about debate", consensus references agreement where there are optional outcomes.. if you are looking for the speed of light, consensus that the speed of peanut-butter is identical will not suffice.. consensus that the world was flat was not science, it was observation in the absence of scientific method.. Be well.. Scientific consensus is the consensus that a theory or an particular aspect of a theory is in current alignment with observation. Examples that you reference would include that the speed of light is a physical limit in that there is no possible speed, of anything, higher than that, and what the current most precisely measured value of that is. The idea of consensus comes into play because of references to second-hand information. Not every scientist who relies on a consensus will have participated in the experiments that established it. It's related to the notion of peer review.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2013 9:50:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. I am neither presupposing nor attaching.. i'm paying attention.. "well settled" sounds a lot like 'attachment' doesn't it.. No, science isn't "as much about consensus as it is about debate", consensus references agreement where there are optional outcomes.. if you are looking for the speed of light, consensus that the speed of peanut-butter is identical will not suffice.. consensus that the world was flat was not science, it was observation in the absence of scientific method.. Be well.. True that, there is general consensus in creationism but evolution has proven that to be flat-earthism...How so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 11:30:06 GMT -5
True that, there is general consensus in creationism but evolution has proven that to be flat-earthism...How so? Sorry, I'm not interested in the creationism/evolution debate...other than to say the consensus in creationism doesn't make it true in relation to the evidence regarding evolution...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 14:48:28 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not interested in the creationism/evolution debate...other than to say the consensus in creationism doesn't make it true in relation to the evidence regarding evolution... I've never understood why these have to be mutually exclusive ;-) The LOA crowd seem to straddle that divide rather well. And math has shown that the Darwinian model does not always hold true, for example, many species have been shown to genetically evolved and adapt hundreds of thousands of years FASTER than what is mathematically possible via natural selection of random gene mutations ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 18:38:42 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not interested in the creationism/evolution debate...other than to say the consensus in creationism doesn't make it true in relation to the evidence regarding evolution... I've never understood why these have to be mutually exclusive ;-) The LOA crowd seem to straddle that divide rather well. And math has shown that the Darwinian model does not always hold true, for example, many species have been shown to genetically evolved and adapt hundreds of thousands of years FASTER than what is mathematically possible via natural selection of random gene mutations ;-) It's interesting to note that 40% of scientists also hold some sort of spiritual perspective... It must make for interesting conversations around the dinner table...
|
|