quantumdream Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 Perhaps there are no great truths or theories, just a world that dispenses information consistant with our eventual expectations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael77 Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 you're joking right........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 One day I was thinking: science as we know it could be totally wrong. Perhaps there are no atoms, black holes, quarks or matter. Science in general is how we interpret things, not necessarily how they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael77 Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 Science is about ovservation and documentation..... where would you stipulate the conspiracies come in?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael77 Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 I mean......what would make you ask this question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 Originally posted by blike One day I was thinking: science as we know it could be totally wrong. Perhaps there are no atoms, black holes, quarks or matter. Science in general is how we interpret things, not necessarily how they are. It could be yes. In fact, it probably is, in a sense. remember all we have is a mathematical model, that predicts what we will observe, based on a bunch of 'interactions'. All it is, is just some mathematical explanation of what we see. An analogy would be making a mathematical model of a car, based on what we do to the car, and what we observe, without ever being able to look under the bonnet. It would produce the right result, and we could say 'hey, now we understand this car' but in reality we don't. This becomes particularly acuse when we look at the likes of Quantum mechanics, where so far as I can see, we have to resort to using imaginary numbers in order to get a result... well what are they? for those of you who know, skip this bit, or correct it if I'm wrong: the imaginary number i is basically the square root of minus one. while it may seem useless, as it isn't a 'thing that exists' - for example you can't have i apples, it is a tremendously useful tool in mathemetics. well i isn't 'real', but it is nescessary, so wither we have a flawed understanding of 'i' or our model is nothing more than that, just a mathematical construct, that by fair means or foul, comes up with the right answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billzilla Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 Define 'reality'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 Originally posted by Billzilla Define 'reality'. very profound, and philosophers have been arguing over it for thousands of years. the only reply I can give, is that an objective reality is 'that which is', wheras a subjective reality is 'that which we think is' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 to look under the bonnet Are you british? i is a very good example, glad you thought of it. got me thinking even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 You are correct RadE, reality is the way it is and we had better get it right, thats what science's goal is. We can not define what real is, it is already defined, we must search for the concepts, by logic and trial an error so we can find that definition. Pseudoscience becoming true science is the process. And you are talking to the chief pseudoscientist in these parts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumdream Posted September 15, 2002 Author Share Posted September 15, 2002 Conspiracy~"to breathe with." Quantum participation does just that. The world affects us as we affect the world. "Quantum thinking," as opposed to thinking with aloof classical reason, is in sync with environmental expectation. It answers in an unconventional manner, but one that intimates a more inclusive objectivity. Perhaps there is even a Higher Intelligence that influences our expectations with outcomes. Moreover, the scientific method is not always the most effective; rather than rigidly changing our expectations, "eventual expectations" may also interpolate toward a conclusion. Recall the unconventional methods of Ramanujan, removed from the scientific method, reproducing much of modern mathematics in a his mystical fashion, deriving problems and corollaries solely from solutions themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael77 Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 By definition a conspiracy is, "an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act"-Webster's-. ....... subversive acts, such as a crime, require one thing.....a motive.....what is the motive you are suggesting here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 I wouldn't be surprised if a couple hundred years down the line all our laws of physics are thrown out the window. We simply don't know all too much about the universe, especially on sub-atomic scales (and btw, we can look at an atom) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumdream Posted September 16, 2002 Author Share Posted September 16, 2002 Motive - to show a correlation between physical phenomena and intuition ("eventual expectations") internal historically to observers (and manifest to a degree greater than that provided by the scientific method). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by blike Are you british? i is a very good example, glad you thought of it. got me thinking even more. Ineed I am.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 and btw, we can look at an atom "STM image (7 nm x 7 nm) of a single zigzag chain of cesium atoms (red) on a gallium-arsenside surface (blue)" The point I was making that although we observe atoms, its only our observation..not necessarily the right observation or the only observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumdream Posted September 16, 2002 Author Share Posted September 16, 2002 We all have a different phase relative to the actual atoms, which does not affect their dual (me-atom) expectation value, but does that of the triadic path you-me-atom. Much like a dual slit experiment with communicating observers for slits, and a laboratory>>lambda source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov We can not define what real is Woah, I know kung-foo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Real is what is supported by the most evidence at the moment. The way science works, real can go in all sorts of directions until further investigation narrows the possibilities. For example: The Ice Man. At first discovery he was treated as a recent casualty. Then observers noted the ancient clothing and weapons. Now he was an old hunter. After measurements showed he was 5000 years old and had his copper axe and bow it was persued that he was a high sacrifice. Grains and grasses in his stomach had some postulating that he was a vegetarian. Later an arrow in his left shoulder had some saying he was chased out of his villiage. The latest says through DNA tests on his stomach contents that he had a meal of Ibyx or wild goat and later a meal of vennison or deer meat. This suggests that he was a good hunter. Hunters shoot for near the left shoulder blade for quick kills so he may have been killed by a different tribes hunter. This is a long ways from the starting presumption of a frozen recent wanderer. Real just gets more real with information. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now