Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By JazzGuy
  • 1 Post By Farsight

Thread: Science is Magic

  1. #1 Science is Magic 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    For the discussion here, I will define 'Magic' as some Physical thing that defies reason. By the way, this in not the definition floating around the the internet.

    'Reason' I define as an operation of the predicate algebra.

    I submit that Quantum Mechanics is indistinguishable from Magic.

    You think you live in a world that, given enough understanding, is reasonable. I say this is rubbish. I say that you are incapable of understanding the nature of reality.

    The incantations of physicists in the form of equations are no different than the Englishe of olde who invoked Latin to impress the unLatinised.

    I'm not a lamb to following the proclamations ingenious men without doubt.

    How am I wrong?
    Last edited by Useful Idiot; 04-26-2014 at 04:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    165
    x You're right that Quantum Mechanics in many respects defies "common sense", and deviates from the theories that preceded it. In its natural abundance, grain is nigh unto useless as a food source for gatherers. Our stomachs probably didn't even have the enzymes for it when it was an uncommon food source.

    Also it is true that QM is not fully understood, since there is still no working theory of gravity in its framework. We still have to use Einstein's classical based formulas for that. (Even though Einstein is the one who got the show started by his work on the photo-electric effect.

    However some of the experiments that have been used to verify QM are very compelling. It's as near a "fact" as anything can really get.
    A mathematician and an engineer were at a party. An older colleague of theirs was there with his daughter. The two each asked if they could speak to her. He said it was ok, but they had to approach her by going half way across the room, then stop, then half way again and stop and proceed in that manner. The mathematician realized that he would never reach her and gave up. The engineer determined that he could get close enough to talk. --Approximate retelling of a joke by my math teacher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    I'm not sure anyone really gets this. This is a testable question within the framework of various interpretations of the scientific method.

    I don't mean to be rude Kojax, and thanks for your response. It is probably a question most scientific types find ridiculous or repulsive. But I think it is worth examining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    For the discussion here, I will define 'Magic' as some Physical thing that defies reason. By the way, this in not the definition floating around the the internet.

    'Reason' I define as an operation of the predicate algebra.

    I submit that Quantum Mechanics is indistinguishable from Magic.

    You think you live in a world that, given enough understanding, is reasonable. I say this is rubbish. I say that you are incapable of understanding the nature of reality.

    The incantations of physicists in the form of equations are no different than the Englishe of olde who invoked Latin to impress the unLatinised.

    I'm not a lamb to following the proclamations ingenious men without doubt.

    How am I wrong?
    Magic describes the result we observe when two frameworks are paradoxical (for example, the lady is sawed in half and then emerges healthy). Equally, in EPR structures, two outcomes apply, and they are paradoxical for their event-structures.
    However, magical events, by definition, do not have any basis of causality to be discovered, except that some omnipotent person is exerting influence to cause the event.
    On the other hand, EPR events do have causation for the paradox/magic that arises. Simply stated, there is an inversion "flipping" of relationship between the elements of a system between what is quantum and what is classical for causality. The mechanism of this inversion is readily identifiable in the apparatus of the given EPR experiment. Thus, the event-structure in EPR experiments is not really magical (no omnipotent being required), rather it is paradoxical. The distinction leads us to a new question for our current understanding of the universe. Does the universe, in its ultimate form, fundamentally include paradox as a mechanism? If it does, then singular, ultimate understanding of the universe is not possible.

    To support the contention that quantum and classical frameworks may be equally valid perspectives conjoined paradoxically, a quote from a debate between Penrose and Hawking is instructive. [From: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. 1995. The Nature of Space and Time, Princeton: Princeton University Press.]
    p4. Hawking Classical Theory: “General relativity is a beautiful theory that agrees with every observation that has been made.”
    Penrose p.61: “It has been said that quantum field theory is the most accurate physical theory ever, being accurate to about one part in 10^11. However, I would like to point out that general relativity has, in a certain clear sense, now been tested to be correct to one part in 10^14 (and this accuracy has apparently been limited merely by the accuracy of clocks on earth). I am speaking of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar PSR 1913 + 16, . . . “

    If paradox is a fundamental mechanism in the universe then there is no scientific basis to either prove or disprove it. Our proof would, by definition of our premise, necessarily be either inconsistent or incomplete as a result of the mechanism of paradox. Ultimate science (for the discovery of a theory of everything) is based on the belief that the universe does not include paradox as a mechanism. That is not what we have seen to be the case so far. For this important philosophical debate, perhaps a better approach and logical assumption would be to conclude that paradox is a mechanism and then attempt to find a counter example.
    Last edited by JazzGuy; 05-08-2014 at 01:33 PM.
    Useful Idiot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    First off, this thread belongs in the new theories section

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    For the discussion here, I will define 'Magic' as some Physical thing that defies reason.
    Once you define your own terms you stop talking about what’s really going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    'Reason' I define as an operation of the predicate algebra.
    Never heard of it. What exactly do you claim that “predicate algebra” is? I couldn’t find it on the Internet and I’m far from being a slouch mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    I submit that Quantum Mechanics is indistinguishable from Magic.
    When you use this mysterious reasoning of yours. Okay. So you think that it’s indistinguishable from Magic. What are we supposed to do with that? Usually when someone comes to a forum and start a thread they want to learn something or they have new idea they want to bounce off others and see what they think? Is that what you want? If that’s the purpose of this thread then I think that it’s a useless idea. Quantum Mechanics is like any other theory in physics. It has a set of postulates which defines the theory and it has an interpretation with which we can make use of it. Every single time that the predictions of quantum mechanics are compared with the results of experiments of observations made in nature they always agree with each other to an extraordinarily high accuracy. We use it all the time in our daily lives in fact. If quantum mechanics is wrong then we’d have been unable to accomplish what we’ve done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    You think you live in a world that, given enough understanding, is reasonable.
    Yep. That’s certainly true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    I say this is rubbish.
    You can say anything you wish to since it makes no difference in our lives. The accuracy of the predictions and usefulness of quantum mechanics is not a function of your opinion of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    I say that you are incapable of understanding the nature of reality.
    Again, what you think is of no consequence to us. I’ve been working with the study of nature most of my life and it’s worked precisely as advertised. I fully understand what I need to and to the level I was able to learn it. And I learned it quite well too. And I’ve accomplished what I set out to do with it using it the way it says it’s supposed to. That’s exactly what it means to be capable of understanding the nature of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    The incantations of physicists in the form of equations …
    Well, now you’re just being silly. You’re showing that you don’t understand the role that math plays in physics. Math is called the “language of physics” because it allows us to make precise statements about observations we make in nature and correlated them with various physical entities. E.g. we use math to be able to take the charge and current in a system and determine the electric and magnetic field. And we actually do it precisely as advertised so you’re quite wrong. The same holds true with quantum mechanics.

    So for these reasons everything you just said is useless nonsense. Mere word salad of no use to anybody.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    How am I wrong?
    Well, first of all you’re actually think that you know better than the people who’ve spent most of their waking hours in intense study thinking about these things and taking every effort with every moment to make sure they’re not making any kind of mistake whatsoever. You made the mistake of thinking that we’re all idiots and not capable of thinking of the incredibly simple things you claim we’re too stupid to know. And there’s no reason to assume physicists are that stupid just because you don’t understand quantum mechanics (and that’s what this post tells me).

    Nope. Sorry. But physicists just aren’t that dumb!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist View Post
    ...Well, first of all you’re actually think that you know better than the people who’ve spent most of their waking hours in intense study thinking about these things and taking every effort with every moment to make sure they’re not making any kind of mistake whatsoever. You made the mistake of thinking that we’re all idiots...
    For a moment there I thought you were talking about moi, Physicist!

    LOL!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    This thread belongs in the new theories section, not here
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    For the discussion here, I will define 'Magic' as some Physical thing that defies reason.
    Once you define your own terms you stop talking about what’s really going on. E.g. many branches of modern physics to seems to defy reason, but in actuality it really doesn’t. It merely seems that way because our minds were built to fathom how we sense the world and reality is just not the way we sense it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    'Reason' I define as an operation of the predicate algebra.
    Never heard of it. What exactly do you claim that “predicate algebra” is? I couldn’t find it on the Internet and I’m far from being a slouch mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    I submit that Quantum Mechanics is indistinguishable from Magic.
    And that “submission” is indeed quite wrong. So you think is indistinguishable from “Magic” is merely your lack of comprehending nature, that’s all.

    Quantum Mechanics is like any other physical theory in that it has a set of postulates that defines the theory and it has an interpretation that allows us to make use of it. Every single time that the predictions of quantum mechanics are compared with the results of experiments of observations which use the theory, and they always agree with experiment, to an extraordinarily high accuracy, the theory is once again verified. We use it all the time in our daily lives in fact. If quantum mechanics is wrong then we’d have been unable to accomplish what we’ve done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    You think you live in a world that, given enough understanding, is reasonable.
    Yep. That’s certainly true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    I say this is rubbish.
    You can say anything you wish to since it makes no difference in our lives. In actuality it’s true, regardless of what you believe. The accuracy of the predictions and usefulness of quantum mechanics does not depend on your opinion of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    I say that you are incapable of understanding the nature of reality.
    And all of us physicists probably believe the same thing of that statement. Again, what you think is of no consequence to us. I’ve been working with the study of nature most of my life, i.e. several decades in fact, and it’s worked precisely as advertised. I fully understand what I need to. And I’ve always accomplished what I set out to do with it using it the way it says it’s supposed to be used. That’s exactly what it means to be capable of understanding the nature of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    The incantations of physicists in the form of equations …
    Well, now you’re just being silly. You’re showing that you don’t understand the role that math plays in physics. Math is called the “language of physics” because it allows us to make precise statements about observations we make in nature and correlated them with various physical entities. E.g. we use math to be able to take the charge and current in a system and determine the electric and magnetic field. And we actually do it precisely as advertised so you’re quite wrong. The same holds true with quantum mechanics.

    So for these reasons everything you just said is useless nonsense. Mere word salad of no use to anybody.

    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot
    How am I wrong?
    Well, first of all you appear to actually think that you know better than the people who’ve created these theories as well as those who have spent most of their waking hours working with them and in intense study thinking about these things and they’ve taken every effort in every moment to make sure they’re not making any kind of mistake whatsoever. You made the mistake of thinking that we’re all idiots, incapable of thinking of the incredibly simple things you claim we’re too stupid to know. And there’s no reason to assume physicists are that stupid merely because you don’t understand quantum mechanics (and that’s what this post tells me).

    Nope. Sorry. But physicists just aren’t that dumb!

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    For a moment there I thought you were talking about ,moi. Physicist

    LOL!
    I don’t understand. What is moi and why did you think I was talking about it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Moi is me from somebody who might say "Pretentious? Moi?"
    Jilan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Useful Idiot, re: your #1 post.

    Hello and Cheers!

    Would I be safe in assuming you are not "happy" with current QM concepts and models? That at some point, the answers are speculative "best guess" scenarios with regard to

    the realities of the Universe? (you are correct...but still, they are the "best guesses" available)

    .....

    How about you write out a specific point? Something everyone knows about? That way you can at least have some common ground on which to debate.

    How about some aspect of particle theory...or perhaps gravity?

    (Thanks for reading!)
    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
  •