Experiment and Theory vs. Reality

[Janitor]

Protonman,

Does it bother you at all that the cultures of India, Nepal, Tibet, and China did not get humans to the moon centuries before the United States (which is overwhelmingly non-Buddhist) did? And I could ask similar questions about whether it was Buddhists or non-Buddhists who had the Right Stuff to design and build the first particle accelerator, the first telescope, the first television set, the first trans-ocean communications cable, the first compact disc, the first digital computer, and so on.

(Al Gore "originated" the Internet, he says, and I've been thinking he may have some Buddhist leanings, so I'll give you folks some credit there. )

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Janitor
Does it bother you at all that the cultures of India, Nepal, Tibet, and China did not get humans to the moon centuries before the United States (which is overwhelmingly non-Buddhist) did? And I could ask similar questions about whether it was Buddhists or non-Buddhists who had the Right Stuff to design and build the first particle accelerator, the first telescope, the first television set, the first trans-ocean communications cable, the first compact disc, the first digital computer, and so on.

Not at all. Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing. Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering? Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?

 

[Janitor]

"Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing."

My point is that we non-Buddhists must have had something pretty powerful going on in our minds in order to design effective machines in the first place.

"Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering?"

Maybe I should have added to my list of devices some pharmaceuticals such as various painkillers, which I suspect were originally researched overwhelmingly by non-Buddhists. Or am I taking you too literally?

"Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?"

Including knowing how to put a man on the moon? Then why didn't they do so a hundred or a thousand years ago?

 

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by protonman ...

I say you're wrong.

 

[FZ+]

I asked you if a photon was wave or a particle. There are four answers wave, particle, both and neither. You said 'yes' eliminating the neither choice. I then asked which one was it and you said neither. So based on what you said initially, which eliminates neither, you then answer that it is in fact neither after you had already eliminated this choice.

Good to see you are on the ball. I didn't post the first reply, but yes, it is both - and - neither. The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Really? I thought this was about science, not navel-gazing...silly me, huh?

What are you implying?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by FZ+
Good to see you are on the ball. I didn't post the first reply, but yes, it is both - and - neither. The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models.

Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Janitor
"Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing."

My point is that we non-Buddhists must have had something pretty powerful going on in our minds in order to design effective machines in the first place.

But your knowledge is nothing without them.

"Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering?"

Maybe I should have added to my list of devices some pharmaceuticals such as various painkillers, which I suspect were originally researched overwhelmingly by non-Buddhists. Or am I taking you too literally?

This is only a very gross form of suffering.

"Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?"

Including knowing how to put a man on the moon? Then why didn't they do so a hundred or a thousand years ago?

Because they realized it is more important to work on inner development.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.

Instead of infering, how about looking at the evidence that exists at the "micro" level? More importantly, why don't you stop ignoring the real world yourself, and realize that you cannot do science by thought experiment alone?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Instead of infering, how about looking at the evidence that exists at the "micro" level? More importantly, why don't you stop ignoring the real world yourself, and realize that you cannot do science by thought experiment alone?

Because inference is more valid than perception.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.

How then do you account for the observations of material things (made of atoms), in the macro world, which behave in accord with QM, but not in accord with classical physics? Some examples (not all may be relevant, it depends on your viewpoint, which remains somewhat unclear to me):
- http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/super/super-f.htm , both He⁴ and He³
- macroscopic quantum entanglement
- macroscopic effects observed in SQUIDs (there are surely better examples in this area, but this will do)

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
How then do you account for the observations of material things (made of atoms), in the macro world, which behave in accord with QM, but not in accord with classical physics? Some examples (not all may be relevant, it depends on your viewpoint, which remains somewhat unclear to me):
- http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/super/super-f.htm , both He⁴ and He³
- macroscopic quantum entanglement
- macroscopic effects observed in SQUIDs (there are surely better examples in this area, but this will do)

That is easy QM is wrong. Although its application may allow one to predict the results of an experiment this does not imply that it is ontologically valid.

 

[FZ+]

Because your views have no connection to the real world.

Wrong. QM, as far as we know, is the real world. What we observe macroscopically is a crude approximation of the beautiful action at the lowest scales. Even in our larger views, we use perception - there is no inference without perception.

That is easy QM is wrong.

Q: Why does X happen?
A: Because it is wrong.

Interesting logic.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Because inference is more valid than perception.

Really? And what are you infering from? Your perception...

What you mean to say is that you like the nonsense you make up yourself more than actually learning anything real...which is fine, but don't pretend that it is an intellectually superior position than real learning and experimentation.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
That is easy QM is wrong. Although its application may allow one to predict the results of an experiment this does not imply that it is ontologically valid.

Hmmm...possibly, but it DOES carry a higher validity than a worldview which DOESN't make accurate predictions.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
That is easy QM is wrong. Although its application may allow one to predict the results of an experiment this does not imply that it is ontologically valid.

If one does not use QM, then how do you account for the *macroscopic* results of these experiments?

 

[Janitor]

"but it DOES carry a higher validity than a worldview which DOESN'T make accurate predictions." -- Zero

My thoughts exactly.

Protonman, by meditating, can you calculate (or should I say divine in the verb sense of the word?) the decay half life of a muon at least as accurately as standard methods of quantum physics can? And if you can't, how can you feel so sure of your superiority?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonboy
You only examine the physical world.

But we were talking about physical theories, remember spanky?

Mind.

I said to prove nonphysical objects exist, not to simply assert that they do.

They only investigate the physical world.

But you still have not proven that a "nonphysical world" exists, so this is moot.

Well you don't really know much about Indian philosophy. Buddhism and Hinduism both have extensive explanations of the physical world as indicated below in my statement about their idea of atoms originating with the Hindus.

Name a single comprehensive theory of the material world that comes from introspection and show how the scientific method of observation "has it backwards". To show that, all you have to do is show how a theory obtained by such navel gazing makes more accurate predictions than modern scientific theories.

You should also explain how such navel gazing is more reliable than sense perception. And your trite one-phrase answers aren't going to cut it. You have to post an argument.

In addition, modern science does not understand the relation between the mind and the external world
Again I call attention to your lack of understanding of the relation between the mind and external reality.

This is awfully presumptuous of you. What makes you think that you do understand the relation between mind and matter?

What you believe in is an objective existence of an external reality which is logically impossible.

Prove it.

No I am not changing my tune. What I am saying is that your methods of experiment can not be confirmed because you do not support them with pervasive logic. If you have a perfect reason backing your experience you can establish it as true.

Again, you are just making this junk up. You seem to believe in some nonexistent "superlogic" that has the certainty of deductive validity not only in the making of inferences, but also in determining the truth value of statements. Such a "perfect reason" or "pervasive logic" simply does not exist.

In addition, I didn't say they were confirmed in all cases. I simply said they were confirmed. That is, confirmed for the individual. But in combination with perfect reasoning they are established.

Since there is no such thing as "perfect reasoning", this is hardly relevant.

Scientific theories do not enjoy the same status. They are continually being replaced every 50-100 years by a so called better theory. You can't explain why the speed of light is measured the same in all inertial reference frames. You can't explain why light is both a particle and a wave. This is total BS.

No, what is "BS" is your backwards view of how scientific investigation is supposed to be undertaken. It comes from your equally backwards worldview that states that the workings of the physical world should be known a priori, when in fact they are not.

In addition, the mind, if trained enough, can understand anything. Therefore, it can know the number of atoms in a handful of sand. You see real wisdom does not rely on machines.

Prove it.

Well let me inform your of something. If you are using a machine to detect particles and looking at the traces in a bubble chamber you are not seeing the particles directly. Therefore, you are using reasoning to establish your theories.

Yes: Inductive reasoning.

My case is that you don't even understand what I am talking about.

Then why don't you prove all the outrageous assertions that I asked you to prove, instead of waffling at every opportunity?

You seem to have a lot of bulit up anger.

No, I am just being emphatic, as I often am when I am correcting a dumb troll who is abusive of the members and staff of these Forums.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonboy
Because inference is more valid than perception.

Prove it, protonboy. Hurkyl and I have already asked you how you know that introspection is more valid than perception. All you keep doing is asserting it.

I am giving you one more chance to go through this thread and answer the straightforward questions put to you. If you come back with more nonsensical assertions, then I am shutting this circus down.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Prove it, protonboy. Hurkyl and I have already asked you how you know that introspection is more valid than perception. All you keep doing is asserting it.

I am giving you one more chance to go through this thread and answer the straightforward questions put to you. If you come back with more nonsensical assertions, then I am shutting this circus down.

No you won't because you are dying to get my answer. Inside you want to know why you are wrong you just won't admit it. So go ahead shut it down. I don't care if one less person doesn't know what I know. It most likely isn't going to change your view.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
No you won't because you are dying to get my answer.

No, I am dying for this thread to start making some progress. It has not, and therefore it is finished.

See protonboy, your introspection hasn't told you everything after all!