|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 20, 2018 16:13:09 GMT -5
My son was asked to be in a play. I told him to go ahead, that it would be fun. I used to hang out with thespians in college. Actually, it was more like stalking. I knew where they would tend to congregate in the student union and I would pretend to be studying and listen to them play roles and joke around. It was amazing to me to have such confidence and freedom. My son suffers from the same social anxiety I do. Only I realize what an asset it has been. When he protested that he was too nervous, I countered that he would be playing a role. "It isn't you. You're somebody else." "You aren't even in the picture, you become somebody else. It's not really you.This version of you you create can have or not have anything it wants. It's make believe." He wasn't going for it. Try to keep encouraging him to try it. ....I discovered these different aspects of self. A part of self is merely this thinking thing, it has a lot of control, it will say no, no, no, you don't want to do it, you can't do it...this about many things. But if you can just overcome these thinking doubts, and step out and do, or at least try, I found that the actual doing is not so bad, very enjoyable in fact. So the hard part of getting past this thinking 'I cannot..I don't want to' part of self. The self that actually does the doing is different from the 'thinking self' that doesn't want to do. I had this very crippling social anxiety, it really limited my life (I pretty-much hated myself for years). And a major thing that is not taught in school (or at least I was taught). it's OK to fail, the world is not going to end if you fail. Much can be learned in failure. That is maybe the major thing i would tell my younger self.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 16:26:17 GMT -5
My son was asked to be in a play. I told him to go ahead, that it would be fun. I used to hang out with thespians in college. Actually, it was more like stalking. I knew where they would tend to congregate in the student union and I would pretend to be studying and listen to them play roles and joke around. It was amazing to me to have such confidence and freedom. My son suffers from the same social anxiety I do. Only I realize what an asset it has been. When he protested that he was too nervous, I countered that he would be playing a role. "It isn't you. You're somebody else." "You aren't even in the picture, you become somebody else. It's not really you.This version of you you create can have or not have anything it wants. It's make believe." He wasn't going for it. Try to keep encouraging him to try it. ....I discovered these different aspects of self. A part of self is merely this thinking thing, it has a lot of control, it will say no, no, no, you don't want to do it, you can't do it...this about many things. But if you can just overcome these thinking doubts, and step out and do, or at least try, I found that the actual doing is not so bad, very enjoyable in fact. So the hard part of getting past this thinking 'I cannot..I don't want to' part of self. The self that actually does the doing is different from the 'thinking self' that doesn't want to do. I had this very crippling social anxiety, it really limited my life (I pretty-much hated myself for years). And a major thing that is not taught in school (or at least I was taught). it's OK to fail, the world is not going to end if you fail. Much can be learned in failure. That is maybe the major thing i would tell my younger self. I hear you. Good advice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 10:11:00 GMT -5
Been studying QM. Wild stuff. There's theoretical infinite square well application of Schrodinger. Basically, it's a two dimensional hole where a particle has no potential energy inside the hole. This simplifies the SE math somewhat, you still need mathemematica or something like it to solve the hairy integrals.
To find the probability density of position and energy of the particle inside the well, you basically define an initial condition equation, at time zero and set it equal to the sum of the infinite number of stationary states, energy levels (superposition), at time zero. This yields an equation for a variable that makes the above sum equation true. This is called Fourier's trick.You then calculate variance using that variable for a specific number of stationary states, not infinite.
The wild thing is the variance you come up with undulates with time, a sinusoidal wave, where the uncertainty of position increases then decreases with time, up and down. The probability density becomes a sharp peak, then flattens out over and over again, back and forth,so you kind of know where you'll find the particle inside the well then you won't really know where you'll find it, back and forth, like a yoyo. As if nature is teasing you. Look it might be here, but then no it could be anywhere. Then no maybe its here, then no it could be anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2018 21:12:55 GMT -5
Been studying QM. Wild stuff. There's theoretical infinite square well application of Schrodinger. Basically, it's a two dimensional hole where a particle has no potential energy inside the hole. This simplifies the SE math somewhat, you still need mathemematica or something like it to solve the hairy integrals. To find the probability density of position and energy of the particle inside the well, you basically define an initial condition equation, at time zero and set it equal to the sum of the infinite number of stationary states, energy levels (superposition), at time zero. This yields an equation for a variable that makes the above sum equation true. This is called Fourier's trick.You then calculate variance using that variable for a specific number of stationary states, not infinite. The wild thing is the variance you come up with undulates with time, a sinusoidal wave, where the uncertainty of position increases then decreases with time, up and down. The probability density becomes a sharp peak, then flattens out over and over again, back and forth,so you kind of know where you'll find the particle inside the well then you won't really know where you'll find it, back and forth, like a yoyo. As if nature is teasing you. Look it might be here, but then no it could be anywhere. Then no maybe its here, then no it could be anywhere. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2019 17:42:53 GMT -5
First paragraph. Without saying specifically, Carroll is probably addressing all the "What the bleep do we know"? Depoke Chopra -Amit Goswami quantum consciousness nonsense. This all came from John von Neumann and Wigner who posed that consciousness is what collapses the wave function. Then the ~belief~ that the classical world does not exist apart from a conscious observer came from that. (Einstein asked the incredulous question, Do! You! Mean! to! Say! The! Moon! Doesn't! Exist! If! I! Am! Not! Looking! At! It!? (David Peat wrote a very good book on entanglement called Einstein's Moon). Carroll is just saying we are past that kind of nonsense. He is basically saying this universe has been around 13.8 billion years without conscious observers being necessary. He also says specifically an instrument, for example a camera, acts just as well as a conscious observer, to collapse the wave function. I can't quote the whole book, Carroll is very sensible. The Schrodinger wave equation. First of all, it was later shown that the Schrodinger equation and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics are equivalent. Carroll and the What Is Real ? book both say the Schrodinger equation shows the world moves along deterministically, as long as there is no measurement. What the Schrodinger equation shows, for example, is the probability of where you will find an electron, if you collapse the wave function via a measurement. I don't see any contradiction, but like I said previously, I didn't know the Schrodinger wave equation, itself, was 'operated' deterministically. The ~movement~ from quantum to classical, via measurement, understanding that, is everything, I agree. First of all, to say that Schrodinger's equation is deterministic is more wishful thinking, it's just word magic. The distinction that matters is that quantum events are ultimately, in Carrol's words, "random". This is as distinct from a clockwork that could be predicted -- in it's entirety -- from initial conditions and natural laws the way that Einstein, and before him, Laplace, envisioned the Universe. Currently, the vogue in the popular literature is to make no distinction between "random" and "stochastic", but, strictly and technically speaking, a "random" process is one with a uniform probability distribution (a constant). White noise, for instance. Event's aren't random, they are predictable, but the prediction is of tendencies, not specific events. You can say that the electron is most likely to be close to the point that's a straight line from the aperture, but you can't say exactly where, and you can't say that the uncertainty is due entirely to a physical process. We can answer the question of what was around to observe the creation of the Universe, with "the Universe". That works, sure. But it's wishful thinking to declare that "the Universe" is a physical machine, that can be described entirely in physical terms. The mystery remains, and some people can still get confused by thinking of consciousness in either entirely personal, or, entirely impersonal terms. The old debate was never resolved, which is why Schrodinger's cat still makes a great koan. And matrix mechanics only simplifies to Schrodinger's equation in one particular, special case. If I was up on the math I could explain in detail what that means. Right now, I'm not, but I'd hate to refrain from disabusing you of the notion that it's otherwise. Yesterday I got a new book. (It's not new, but new to me). Early on it spoke to a issue with laughter (the bold). I'll quote briefly. "The issue of quantum measurement is a tricky one. Unlike in classical mechanics, in quantum mechanics one cannot access all of the information about a particle directly--that is, its position, velocity and so forth. Rather one must consider an entity called the "wave function," which contains all the data about a particles quantum state. ... As von Neumann pointed out, the wave function undergoes two separate types of quantum processes: continuous evolution via Schrodinger's wave equation and discrete "collapse" whenever an observer takes a measurement. For example, suppose an observer conducts an experiment designed to record an electron's exact location. Before the observation, the electron's wave function would continuously obey Erwin Schrodinger's equation telling it exactly how to behave. Nothing would be left to chance. Immediately after the observation, however, the wave function would randomly collapse from a smooth probability spread into a sharp spike representing a particular value. While the first kind of process is wholly deterministic and reversible, the second is random and irreversible. These embody different conceptions of time: the first mechanism matches the cyclic time of a classical pendulum or spring, and the second embodies the linear, irreversible time of an engine wearing down and ultimately grinding to a halt. By the late 1930's, von Neumann's dual picture of continual, reversible evolution, followed by instant, irreversible collapse, had become the orthodox view of quantum measurement--what has come to be called the "Copenhagen interpretation." ...skip... Because experimental data beautifully matched theory, most scientists simply accepted the bizarre idea that observation changed the dynamics of a quantum system from predictable continuity to random jumps". pages 6,7 from The Quantum Labyrinth, How Richard Feynman and John Wheeler Revolutionized Time and Reality 2017 (2018 paperback) by Paul Halpern The pertinent points bold, in reply to laughter's assertion that "to say that Schrodinger's equation is deterministic is more wishful thinking, it's just word magic"... I think Halpern speaks to this pretty clearly. (And I consider it a synchronicity that Roy brought the question up, sort of out of the blue).
|
|
roy
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by roy on Jan 5, 2019 14:51:43 GMT -5
The manner in which we describe phenomena (events and objects) brings about the appearance of those very events and objects. The wave function is the state of consciousness prior to the description. It's not some magical state or realm separate from our experience; it's a model of the state of nonduality.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 5, 2019 18:54:10 GMT -5
The manner in which we describe phenomena (events and objects) brings about the appearance of those very events and objects. The wave function is the state of consciousness prior to the description. It's not some magical state or realm separate from our experience; it's a model of the state of nonduality. Yes, that's the way I understand the issue. If I look at "what is" without making a distinction, nothing (no thing) stands out or exists. "What is" remains what it is--unified and undifferentiated, a superposition of infinite possibility/potentiality. As soon as I make a distinction, I collapse the wave function, and something (some thing) stands out that is separate from all else. In this sense an act of distinction is an act of severance--an act of dividing the Undivided into distinct imaginary states. A tree, for example, becomes a separate bounded thing only when I distinguish/imagine that it's an independently-existing object separate from the entire field of being. Someone who does not understand what's being pointed to will say, "But surely a tree exists whether or not someone is distinguishing it." In fact, nothing (no thing) exists as a separate thing except in imagination. It's common to read in physics texts that "an observation collapses the wave function," but this statement is highly misleading. For a distinct observation to occur there must be the distinction of both an observer and also that which is observed, so both the observer and that which is observed must be imagined into existence. It would be far more accurate to say that a distinction, rather than an observation, is what collapses the wave function because without distinctions we can't even think or talk about what's happening. For a sage with a quiescent mind, isness is all there is, and the world of "ten-thousand things" is understood to be an imaginary world--a map rather than the territory.. A sage knows the difference between the two.
|
|
roy
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by roy on Jan 9, 2019 14:43:01 GMT -5
"It would be far more accurate to say that a distinction, rather than an observation, is what collapses the wave function"
YES! In a double-slit experiment the outcome still isn't established until a consciousness makes an interpretation of the results. All apparent separately existing phenomena arise only when a distinction is made within consciousness. This is why I say that the wave function is actually a description of the state of Samadhi. The wave function is the "more fundamental" state of THIS. A thought "collapses" the undifferentiated state of pure observation into apparently exiting separate phenomena.
The wave function is not some sort of ethereal pure mathematical realm; it's THIS.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 9, 2019 16:51:57 GMT -5
"It would be far more accurate to say that a distinction, rather than an observation, is what collapses the wave function" YES! In a double-slit experiment the outcome still isn't established until a consciousness makes an interpretation of the results. All apparent separately existing phenomena arise only when a distinction is made within consciousness. This is why I say that the wave function is actually a description of the state of Samadhi. The wave function is the "more fundamental" state of THIS. A thought "collapses" the undifferentiated state of pure observation into apparently exiting separate phenomena. The wave function is not some sort of ethereal pure mathematical realm; it's THIS. Exactly! Well stated.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 9, 2019 23:39:40 GMT -5
"It would be far more accurate to say that a distinction, rather than an observation, is what collapses the wave function" YES! In a double-slit experiment the outcome still isn't established until a consciousness makes an interpretation of the results. All apparent separately existing phenomena arise only when a distinction is made within consciousness. This is why I say that the wave function is actually a description of the state of Samadhi. The wave function is the "more fundamental" state of THIS. A thought "collapses" the undifferentiated state of pure observation into apparently exiting separate phenomena. The wave function is not some sort of ethereal pure mathematical realm; it's THIS. The first issue with the 'collapse wave function' interpretation is acausality, because one can't ascertain if the observation causes a collapse, or if a collapse causes an observation, or if indeed, a collapse is an observation.
The results, that is, the data derived from the double slit experiment is not in itself interpreted. It is the measurements that are made - the stuff that happens - the data. The interpretation is an attempt to retrospectively create a coherent story that makes sense of said data, and there are a number of interpretations which describe the possible implications.
All we know for sure is there are probable outcomes, and any single measurement doesn't predict another, but when millions of measurements are made, a distinct statistical pattern emerges. Hence, the 'wave function' basically represents a probability that a particle is somewhere in a vicinity, more likely 'around about here' than 'way over there', but indeed, it might be 'way over there', or more precisely said, it could be detected somewhere as an interaction with a measuring device. The 'wave function collapse' interpretation basically assumes it only exists as a measurement, having no actuality until a measurement is made because it only exists as that interaction.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 10, 2019 8:49:55 GMT -5
"It would be far more accurate to say that a distinction, rather than an observation, is what collapses the wave function" YES! In a double-slit experiment the outcome still isn't established until a consciousness makes an interpretation of the results. All apparent separately existing phenomena arise only when a distinction is made within consciousness. This is why I say that the wave function is actually a description of the state of Samadhi. The wave function is the "more fundamental" state of THIS. A thought "collapses" the undifferentiated state of pure observation into apparently exiting separate phenomena. The wave function is not some sort of ethereal pure mathematical realm; it's THIS. The first issue with the 'collapse wave function' interpretation is acausality, because one can't ascertain if the observation causes a collapse, or if a collapse causes an observation, or if indeed, a collapse is an observation. The results, that is, the data derived from the double slit experiment is not in itself interpreted. It is the measurements that are made - the stuff that happens - the data. The interpretation is an attempt to retrospectively create a coherent story that makes sense of said data, and there are a number of interpretations which describe the possible implications. All we know for sure is there are probable outcomes, and any single measurement doesn't predict another, but when millions of measurements are made, a distinct statistical pattern emerges. Hence, the 'wave function' basically represents a probability that a particle is somewhere in a vicinity, more likely 'around about here' than 'way over there', but indeed, it might be 'way over there', or more precisely said, it could be detected somewhere as an interaction with a measuring device. The 'wave function collapse' interpretation basically assumes it only exists as a measurement, having no actuality until a measurement is made because it only exists as that interaction.
I'll let Roy answer for himself, but what I think he's pointing to is that all of our math is representational and based upon various assumptions and distinctions regarding what we imagine that we are observing. This is also the case with physics. The double-slit experiment assumes that there are separate subatomic particles that appear to act in different ways depending upon the different ways that experiments are set up and measurements are made. A recent book, "Lost in Math," was written by a physicist who is chagrined by the fact that physicists no longer have a clear picture of how their increasingly obscure math relates to what's "really" going on. When my brother told me about this book, I had to laugh because it brought back so many funny memories. One of my initial existential questions that arose after a course in college physics was, "What is a subatomic particle, really?" I used to imagine shrinking myself to the size of a subatomic particle and wondering what I would see. Haha! After contemplating this issue for many years, one day I had a sudden realization that applied to both the macrocosmic world and the subatomic world that answered my question. I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun by answering the question, but I could just have easily asked, "What is a tree, really?" or "What is a wave function, really?"All of these questions, if seriously contemplated, can lead to the same breakthrough in understanding.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2019 12:29:11 GMT -5
The first issue with the 'collapse wave function' interpretation is acausality, because one can't ascertain if the observation causes a collapse, or if a collapse causes an observation, or if indeed, a collapse is an observation. The results, that is, the data derived from the double slit experiment is not in itself interpreted. It is the measurements that are made - the stuff that happens - the data. The interpretation is an attempt to retrospectively create a coherent story that makes sense of said data, and there are a number of interpretations which describe the possible implications. All we know for sure is there are probable outcomes, and any single measurement doesn't predict another, but when millions of measurements are made, a distinct statistical pattern emerges. Hence, the 'wave function' basically represents a probability that a particle is somewhere in a vicinity, more likely 'around about here' than 'way over there', but indeed, it might be 'way over there', or more precisely said, it could be detected somewhere as an interaction with a measuring device. The 'wave function collapse' interpretation basically assumes it only exists as a measurement, having no actuality until a measurement is made because it only exists as that interaction.
I'll let Roy answer for himself, but what I think he's pointing to is that all of our math is representational and based upon various assumptions and distinctions regarding what we imagine that we are observing. This is also the case with physics. The double-slit experiment assumes that there are separate subatomic particles that appear to act in different ways depending upon the different ways that experiments are set up and measurements are made. A recent book, "Lost in Math," was written by a physicist who is chagrined by the fact that physicists no longer have a clear picture of how their increasingly obscure math relates to what's "really" going on. When my brother told me about this book, I had to laugh because it brought back so many funny memories. One of my initial existential questions that arose after a course in college physics was, "What is a subatomic particle, really?" I used to imagine shrinking myself to the size of a subatomic particle and wondering what I would see. Haha! After contemplating this issue for many years, one day I had a sudden realization that applied to both the macrocosmic world and the subatomic world that answered my question. I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun by answering the question, but I could just have easily asked, "What is a tree, really?" or "What is a wave function, really?"All of these questions, if seriously contemplated, can lead to the same breakthrough in understanding. lolly makes some good points. In the book The Quantum Labyrinth Halpern agrees with the author of What Is Real? concerning the Schrodinger equation. Halpern uses the story of Wheeler and Feynman to tell the story of quantum physics. Early in his career Feynman was trying to find a way to relate quantum physics and classical physics. Peeking ahead, Feynman ended up with his sum-over-histories (which adds up every possible quantum path, including backwards and forwards in time). Feynman saw he had to start from scratch. Previously the standard way physicists changed "classical into quantum was to replace variables, such as position and momentum, with mathematical functions called "operators". Those typically involve instantaneous changes with respect to space and time...space and time derivatives-in the wave functions representing particle states. The most important operator, called the "Hamiltonian," constitutes a combination of operators representing kinetic and potential energy". (Halpern discusses this more fully). As some of you know "In calculus, a derivative tracks how something changes slightly during an infinitesimal interval of space and time. {Now to the pertinent part} The Schrodinger equation, constructed around the Hamiltonian operator, nicely shows how a wave function's transformation in space relates to its transformation in time. The equation involves derivatives taken at each point and moment that dictate what happens at the next point and moment. Consequently, the Schrodinger equation...is a locally defined procedure requiring continuity from point to point". (pg 69 The Quantum Labyrinth) This again reaffirms that the Schrodinger equation is deterministic, it describes *real world* events. But then lolly is right, the collapse of the wave function is NOT deterministic. This is the conundrum Feynman was seeking to explain, that the Schrodinger equation is incompatible with the earlier formalism Wheeler and Feynman developed. (still pg 69). This incompatibility is what led Feynman to realize he had to start from scratch, that is, find a means to link events separated widely in spacetime. That is, for example, find a way to describe the remote interactions between two electrons, without "anything physically passing between them". (pgs 69, 70). This is how I would describe what's going on. The Schrodinger equation describes a horse race in time, or better yet, a running back on the verge of scoring a touchdown. Two horses are nose to nose at the finish line. Who won? We have to look at the photo, a snapshot (a collapse of the wave function). Or looking at the stop-action of a touchdown-fumble, did the runner break the plane of the goal-line with the ball before he fumbled? (Was it a touchdown before the fumble?) Like it or not, the (Schrodinger) wave function (equation) describes ~real world~ space-time events. We do not yet know what collapses the wave function, this is the measurement problem. It is uncaused. And this is why Einstein never agreed quantum mechanics was the final word. He famously said on several occasions (metaphorically) "God does not play dice with the universe". All that we know says, yes, he does. Or the tale of the 3 umpires, better. The ontological umpire calling balls and strikes, says, I call them as they are. The epistemological umpire, I call them as I see them. The quantum umpire, They aren't anything until I call them.
|
|
roy
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by roy on Jan 10, 2019 14:10:16 GMT -5
Those of us in this discussion know the state of Samadhi. What I'm saying is that the wave function is a mathematical representation of this state. So if it's a state of non-interpretation, the attempt to interpret it is exactly what it is not. It's a state; a way of experiencing THIS. Consciousness may experience THIS as separately existing phenomena (via thought) and/or experience it as a undifferentiated whole (pure) observation.
All exists here now, therefore all "proven" models must be of THIS experience here now. There are no magical separate realms. Well, at least there is no need to include separate realms or parallel universes in order to describe the All.
A wave function collapse is a fancy way of describing the act of thinking. Where does the thought "chair" exist? In/as the wave function. When the thought "chair" pops into consciousness, if it's alone without a physical object instigating that thought, then it's still in wave form I suppose. If the thought "chair" is instigated by the physical realm, then the wave function "collapses" and there is the appearance of a chair.
Love the umpire story!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2019 16:06:05 GMT -5
Those of us in this discussion know the state of Samadhi. What I'm saying is that the wave function is a mathematical representation of this state. So if it's a state of non-interpretation, the attempt to interpret it is exactly what it is not. It's a state; a way of experiencing THIS. Consciousness may experience THIS as separately existing phenomena (via thought) and/or experience it as a undifferentiated whole (pure) observation. All exists here now, therefore all "proven" models must be of THIS experience here now. There are no magical separate realms. Well, at least there is no need to include separate realms or parallel universes in order to describe the All. A wave function collapse is a fancy way of describing the act of thinking. Where does the thought "chair" exist? In/as the wave function. When the thought "chair" pops into consciousness, if it's alone without a physical object instigating that thought, then it's still in wave form I suppose. If the thought "chair" is instigated by the physical realm, then the wave function "collapses" and there is the appearance of a chair. Love the umpire story! Well....this is a "debate" I've had with others here for years, I've been pretty much alone. I consider it the case the universe has been around about 13.7 billion years. Most others here consider it true that what is is an amorphous quantum soup until there is some type of observation that collapses the "soup" into ~stuff~. (This is roughly based on Ghoswami and Chopra and the film What the Bleep Do We Know? stuff.. which goes back to von Neuman abd Wigner.). Previously I've quoted physicists who use decoherence to show wave functions collapse *naturally* without the necessity for consciousness to enter the picture. (I stole the umpire story, slightly altering it).
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 10, 2019 21:29:16 GMT -5
The first issue with the 'collapse wave function' interpretation is acausality, because one can't ascertain if the observation causes a collapse, or if a collapse causes an observation, or if indeed, a collapse is an observation. The results, that is, the data derived from the double slit experiment is not in itself interpreted. It is the measurements that are made - the stuff that happens - the data. The interpretation is an attempt to retrospectively create a coherent story that makes sense of said data, and there are a number of interpretations which describe the possible implications. All we know for sure is there are probable outcomes, and any single measurement doesn't predict another, but when millions of measurements are made, a distinct statistical pattern emerges. Hence, the 'wave function' basically represents a probability that a particle is somewhere in a vicinity, more likely 'around about here' than 'way over there', but indeed, it might be 'way over there', or more precisely said, it could be detected somewhere as an interaction with a measuring device. The 'wave function collapse' interpretation basically assumes it only exists as a measurement, having no actuality until a measurement is made because it only exists as that interaction.
I'll let Roy answer for himself, but what I think he's pointing to is that all of our math is representational and based upon various assumptions and distinctions regarding what we imagine that we are observing. This is also the case with physics. The double-slit experiment assumes that there are separate subatomic particles that appear to act in different ways depending upon the different ways that experiments are set up and measurements are made. A recent book, "Lost in Math," was written by a physicist who is chagrined by the fact that physicists no longer have a clear picture of how their increasingly obscure math relates to what's "really" going on. When my brother told me about this book, I had to laugh because it brought back so many funny memories. One of my initial existential questions that arose after a course in college physics was, "What is a subatomic particle, really?" I used to imagine shrinking myself to the size of a subatomic particle and wondering what I would see. Haha! After contemplating this issue for many years, one day I had a sudden realization that applied to both the macrocosmic world and the subatomic world that answered my question. I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun by answering the question, but I could just have easily asked, "What is a tree, really?" or "What is a wave function, really?"All of these questions, if seriously contemplated, can lead to the same breakthrough in understanding. Yes, the math that describes/predicts our observations doesn't tell us anything about what's 'really there', but it is true in terms of 'it works'. However, we are limited by what we can say when it comes to knowledge, and we have no idea what experience 'really is'.
|
|