Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By pikpobedy
  • 1 Post By x0x
  • 1 Post By mayflow

Thread: Quantum Physics, Depth Psychology, and Beyond

  1. #1 Quantum Physics, Depth Psychology, and Beyond 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    I haven't read the whole article yet, but I was searching for something concerning the psychology of physicists - and I came across what looks like a very interesting (to me at least) article which I thought to share and maybe get some opinions about...

    Quantum Physics, Depth Psychology, and Beyond by Thomas J. McFarlane
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    I am not into mystical or psychological interpretations of physics, maths, chemistry, biology, electricity, magnetism, energy etc etc etc.... you get the picture.

    But I can quote HL Mencken.

    Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible.

    The effort to reconcile science and religion is almost always made, not by theologians, but by scientists unable to shake off altogether the piety absorbed with their motherís milk.

    The second quote is a bit out of date because religionist celebrities are always trying to prove that the bible, quaran and other stuff like that contain scientific truths.
    Only low level science and technology people join religious activism.
    Last edited by pikpobedy; 10-01-2014 at 12:52 AM.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by HL Menken
    Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible.
    Thanks pikpobedy, that's gonna be my quote of the month

    The effort to reconcile science and religion
    Peace of cake.

    They are both leap of faith. You abide by the method(X) and some good is supposed to happens.

    In both case endless debates will prove that to be wrong and right.

    Quote Originally Posted by pikpobedy
    Only low level science and technology people join religious activism.
    objection ! There are many top level scientist that do have a big heart.

    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow
    psychology of physicists
    That's called the psychology of humans. But many may have some mania with numbers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by pikpobedy View Post
    I am not into mystical or psychological interpretations of physics, maths, chemistry, biology, electricity, magnetism, energy etc etc etc.... you get the picture.

    But I can quote HL Menken.

    Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible.
    Love the quotes!

    (Minor, teeny nit: It's "Mencken", not "Menken.")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    To write off the mind as a part of reality is to write off the mind as relating to quantum physics, and you do I would think know you are using your minds to think that. If you think your mind is a the sum of some equation, who made the equation?

    Quantum mysticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    If you think your mind is a the sum of some equation, who made the equation?
    Your question presumes several false premises. The most glaring is the assumption that a creation implies the existence of a creator.

    You are retreading ancient and discredited arguments for a god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    I don't believe in a creator god though. I believe in conservation of matter and energy including mind. Next false premise is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    I don't believe in a creator god though. I believe in conservation of matter and energy including mind.
    "Mind" hasn't even been defined, so you've put the cart far ahead of the horse in asserting that it obeys a conservation law of any kind.

    Independently of that minor flaw, there's the additional problem of no seeming connexion between your statement of belief and your earlier question about who created the equations that describe phenomena. Your question implied a belief in the existence of a creator. I've simply pointed out that the existence of something in no way implies a creator of that something, whether you choose to call that creator a god or a brapilaxabone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Mind may not have a definition, but what does? I see nothing other than mind that seeks to define.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    Mind may not have a definition, but what does? I see nothing other than mind that seeks to define.
    No, that's a cheap copout: "Everything is mysterious, so anything goes."

    Lots of things have definitions that admit of measurement. Voltage, force, etc. all have such definitions. Mind does not.

    As this is a physics forum, and not a navel-gazing one, we will have to confine the scope of such musings to delineate between the hopelessly fuzzy (where anything goes, and so discusssions are just a waste of breath), and things whose quantitative relationships have been identified, even if incompletely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    You shall take your approach and I shall take mine. The wavefunction has infinite probabilities in my view, and the particle functions - what will they do? Have they not been paralyzed and particulized by your and others actions of mind? You however can not hold them hostage as when the electrons tunnel, all hell will break loose. You cannot imprison a free particle, much less a free wave. They will return to the free waveform state.

    As you said, those quantitative relationships have been defined, but they are not complete, and they may quite truly be momentarily imaginitive with no lasting reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    You shall take your approach and I shall take mine. The wavefunction has infinite probabilities in my view, and the particle functions - what will they do? Have they not been paralyzed and particulized by your and others actions of mind? You however can not hold them hostage as when the electrons tunnel, all hell will break loose. You cannot imprison a free particle, much less a free wave. They will return to the free waveform state.

    As you said, those quantitative relationships have been defined, but they are not complete, and they may quite truly be momentarily imaginitive with no lasting reality.
    Mayflow, I'm not trying to give you a hard time for hard time's sake, but you seem too comfortable with New Age woo ("ah, the quantum mysteries of the wavefunction -- the beauty of the mystical"). You've basically replaced magic with words appropriated from QM. But it is clear that you don't actually know much about what QM actually says, nor how to use QM's equations to carry out a calculation of any kind; you've taken the easy way out.

    So, yes, I shall take my "approach" -- which is to treat QM as a science -- and you can take yours -- which is to treat QM as a source of mystery which you then try to tie to all mysteries.

    As I said, this is a physics forum. You clearly prefer navel-gazing. I'll take my approach any day.
    Last edited by tk421; 10-01-2014 at 02:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Mayflow, I'm not trying to give you a hard time for hard time's sake, but you seem too comfortable with New Age woo ("ah, the quantum mysteries of the wavefunction -- the beauty of the mystical"). You've basically replaced magic with words appropriated from QM. But it is clear that you don't actually know much about what QM actually says, nor how to use QM's equations to carry out a calculation of any kind; you've taken the easy way out.

    So, yes, I shall take my "approach" -- which is to treat QM as a science -- and you can take yours -- which is to treat QM as a source of mystery which you then try to tie to all mysteries.

    As I said, this is a physics forum. You clearly prefer navel-gazing. I'll take my approach any day.
    Well, quite right. That is a weakness of mine. I think I figured out something today about how to convert dB of gain into power (in watts) output of a high frequency amplifier. I think it should be done appropriately in math by using log functions but I don't know what log functions are or mean.

    I will explain the scenario. This guy at work did a new thing we are supposed to do which is to measure at what power input (in dBm) an amplifier will begin to compress the output of the amp. The software told us the dB of gain and the dBm of input at that level. So we wanted to determine how many watts the amplifier could put out clean from excessive compression.

    Now dB is simply a ratio to my understanding. dBm is a ratio relevant to 1 mw and 0 dBm is considered to be 1 mw.

    Let us assume as I don't remember all the numbers precisely, that the input to the amp was -5 dBm and the gain of the amp was 51.4 dB.

    Given this information, what do you think the dBm output of the amp was and what do you think it is in watts?
    If you know how to do math, it does not mean much if you cannot apply it to real situations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post

    Let us assume as I don't remember all the numbers precisely, that the input to the amp was -5 dBm and the gain of the amp was 51.4 dB.

    Given this information, what do you think the dBm output of the amp was and what do you think it is in watts?
    If you know how to do math, it does not mean much if you cannot apply it to real situations.
    . What is your point relative to tk421 post?
    mayflow likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Your answer matches mine. How did you arrive at it? The point relative to tk421 is that I can do math, but I don't know how I can do it.
    You impress me with this answer, xOx. 43.65 (and change) Watts.

    Now, on an off note, let us be nice to one another and to all on this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    Your answer matches mine. How did you arrive at it?
    Using math and physics.

    The point relative to tk421 is that I can do math, but I don't know how I can do it.
    Then why do you keep showing pride in the fact that you don't know math or physics, that you never learned? It is baffling to flaunt ignorance.

    You impress me with this answer, xOx. 43.65 (and change) Watts.
    This is what happens when you DO have schooling, you KNOW how to solve problems. Out of curiosity, can you show your steps how you arrived to the answer? It isn't obvious and you cannot have guessed it. Did the engineers you are working with tell you the answer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Using math and physics.



    Then why do you keep showing pride in the fact that you don't know math or physics, that you never learned? It is baffling to flaunt ignorance.



    This is what happens when you DO have schooling, you KNOW how to solve problems. Out of curiosity, can you show your steps how you arrived to the answer?

    Well, I deduced that dB is relative to something, and that dBm is relative to 0dBm = 1 mw. So, like if there is a -5 dBm input and the gain is 51.4 dB, that now the gain is relative to not 0 dBm, but - 5 dBm. So the the dBm is actually 46.4 dBm.
    Then it seemed to me that to calculate watts from dBm, I would do 10^(dBm/10)/1000. It seemed to work and in this case dBm was 46.4 - and the answer was 43.6515 Watts which coincides with your answer - but you did not tell me how you arrived at your answer other than because you have schooling. That is not an answer. Your answer I think is correct (roughly) but how did you get it? Not because you have schooling but how did you get it. This is what I am asking. I don't know about logs, but they must be a part of how you figured this out on your own - if you actually did figure this out on your own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    I don't know about logs, but they must be a part of how you figured this out on your own - if you actually did figure this out on your own.
    Not logarithms. Powers.
    It is exactly this type of impertinence that makes me not want to teach you anything. You keep talking about "being nice" but you come up with BS like the one that you just posted. So, not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    It is exactly this type of impertinence that makes me not want to teach you anything. You keep talking about "being nice" but you come up with BS like the one that you just posted. So, not.
    Hey, you asked me how I came up with my answer and I told you, and I did use powers. Now you tell me how you came up with yours. I was hoping for someone to answer with something bout logs and antilogs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    Hey, you asked me how I came up with my answer and I told you, and I did use powers. Now you tell me how you came up with yours. I was hoping for someone to answer with something bout logs and antilogs.
    Not until you apologize for your low, unwarranted dig. It isn't your first offense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Using math and physics.



    Then why do you keep showing pride in the fact that you don't know math or physics, that you never learned? It is baffling to flaunt ignorance.



    This is what happens when you DO have schooling, you KNOW how to solve problems. Out of curiosity, can you show your steps how you arrived to the answer? It isn't obvious and you cannot have guessed it. Did the engineers you are working with tell you the answer?
    I missed this post. No, my Engineers did not tell me. And besides, I already told you how I came up with it, but you did not tell me how you came up with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Not until you apologize for your low, unwarranted dig. It isn't your first offense.

    Huh?
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •