|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 15, 2010 20:05:00 GMT 1
Rubbish. If different interpretation give the same predictions for experiments, then they are just equivalent ways of saying the same thing. If there are ways to distinguish between them, just that we can't do the experiments, then observations can't help us BUT NEITHER CAN ANYTHING ELSE. What do you think is the magic way of determining the truth, and can show you show that it is anything more than just wishful thinking? I doubt it. The fact is STA, you are in denial about the fact that we humans are incapable of understanding QM because we have brains that have evolved over time to deal with big things in four dimensional spacetime. We cannot see extra dimensions, which may well be involved with the odd experimental results found in the quantum world so we have to use rough and ready representations of this subtle world which will never be what it actually is.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Sept 15, 2010 20:14:59 GMT 1
You make the point in two precise sentences Abacus. Well done
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 15, 2010 20:30:20 GMT 1
You make the point in two precise sentences Abacus. Well done Thank you Alan, I try. ;D
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 16, 2010 13:10:15 GMT 1
Rather than being in DENIAL over this, I would say it is trivially obvious, that we can have no such intuitive understanding of quantum theory. Although actually, our brains have only evolved to deal with things over a rather limited range of length scales, which is flummoxed by the very small, or anything over a few miles in length. Anything outside of our direct physical experience, in effect. Which actually doesn't encompass that much of the universe.
BUT that doesn't mean we can't have a mathematical understanding of it, or that we can't use the maths to make definite testable predictions.
[snip]
And even if it were true, the lack of understanding of the scientific world doesn't then make any other approach with similalry limited understanding equally valid. Because I know what is going on here, the same ole science doesn't really understand anything, therefore theology is as good an answer as anything else -- just trying to inflate degrees of ignorance to try and leave a big enough gap to slot god in yet again.
Plus I also note we had one abortive attempt to play the science keeps changing its mind therefore why should we treat any of its conclusions seriously line. Which is so daft as to be totally laughable[snip]
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 16, 2010 17:13:26 GMT 1
I'm sorry, but at the end of the day maths is only an analogy to represents observations - a kind of four dimensional space concept that is attempting to describe phenomena that does not obey the normal laws of four dimensional spacetime. How can it possibly gain us insight into quantum mechanical processes? It's like a blind man using a stick with which to find his way down a road; he cannot experience the road directly but has to make a mental model in his head from what taps and bumps the stick makes - so it is with maths. In short, STA, QM is all in the mind.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 16, 2010 17:28:14 GMT 1
All axioms are self-referential, therefore we can never be sure of what we do not know, only what we think we know. Godel showed that axiomatic structures are always incomplete because there are always true statements for which the axioms cannot provide proof for. Science is based on its axioms as well as maths so the general principle applies, which is why the concept of God can never be ruled out.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 16, 2010 19:34:15 GMT 1
[snip]. Maths is maths and most of it has nothing whatsoever to with anything in the real world. What is perhaps surprising is that certain bits of maths CAN be used to construct theories of the real world, and they seem to do that extremely well -- so well in fact that we cannot say that the real world itself isn't actually mathematical.
Same tired old arguments. And yet another feeble attempt to bring in poor old Godel and his incompleteness theorems.
As I knew before, you just don't know enough maths (or physics frankly) to make any useful comments about the matter.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 11:16:50 GMT 1
How you are able to dissociate maths from the needs of society is quite breathtaking. Do you really think that a few mathematical 'gifted amateurs' would have been able to make the innovations that we have seen over the last few hundred years in fields as diverse as engineering and physics, etc., if it had just been left up to a few mathematical 'hobbyists?' Necessity is the mother of invention.
Get real STA.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 20, 2010 12:36:05 GMT 1
You've obviously never met any mathematicians then.
Most of maths was no good to anybody when it was discovered, and much of it remains that way, despite surprising uses being found for much of it. The use of maths in physics and engineering is mostly straightforward, but not always, as Heisenberg re-discovered calculations with non-commuting quantities to formulate quantum theory, which others correctly interpreted as jusr matrices (most physicists at the time had never used or been taught matrices, which were viewed as pure maths).
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 16:02:41 GMT 1
You've obviously never met any mathematicians then. Most of maths was no good to anybody when it was discovered, and much of it remains that way, despite surprising uses being found for much of it. The use of maths in physics and engineering is mostly straightforward, but not always, as Heisenberg re-discovered calculations with non-commuting quantities to formulate quantum theory, which others correctly interpreted as jusr matrices (most physicists at the time had never used or been taught matrices, which were viewed as pure maths). I would suggest that it is the challenges of scientific phenomena such as quantum mechanics that pushes the boundaries of mathematics into ever new areas. In short, reality decides what maths are relevant, not people. Mathematicians may enjoy playing their 'mind games' but that is all they are until some of them are found to be important.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 20, 2010 19:36:50 GMT 1
You don't know any history of science either then.....................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 21, 2010 23:28:53 GMT 1
Silly comments like this do not enhance your credentials as a sensible scientist, STA.
We are basically animals that have a need to survive and everything, from metabolising food into energy to lovemaking, has only one aim - to survive and allow our genetic code to be passed on. This is as true of procreation as it is of inventing symbolic representations of quantitative and relational symbols that we call mathematics which allow us to exercise a degree of control over our environment. So, so-called 'mind-games' are really nature's way of preparing us for future challenges that our unpredictable and sometimes hostile world will present to us.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 22, 2010 12:46:22 GMT 1
You've very obviously never even seen any mathematicians if you think you can explain their mathematical ability as some evolutionary adaptation designed to further their reproductive success................
Why do you always dismiss as illy any suggestions that there are things you don't know, or things you have got wrong? Because unless you can see this , you will never learn. And it is always the weakest students that consistently over-estimate their own abilities................
|
|