Imaginary nonexistent world
- Thread starter Buket
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Out of context it sounds like a very strange remark, though conceivably it relates to some attempt to describe QED.
Can you provide the full quotation, give us some context and also who said it?
Question: Are you the Nicholas Hosein who has quoted Spellbound of this forum?
Question: Why do you spam so many different sites?
Question: What definitions of "real", "reality", "realism", "imaginary", "object", and "evidence" are you using?
Think about it.
But I don't think you are capable of articulating your viewpoint, because you are mixing physics and metaphysics.
A "physical theory" is a communicable framework which precisely describes the observable behavior of a large domain of related phenomena.
1) "communicable" because human beings can teach it to other humans who are willing and able. That way we can talk about THE quantum mechanics rather than "Joe's quantum mechanics" and "Mary's quantum mechanics." The best scientific theories are the inheritance of all humans.
2) "framework" because physical theories define their own terms. Reality comes with no labels, so humans invent them to suit human purposes. "time" and "straight line" mean something different in Newtonian theories and post-1916 physical theories."position" and "momentum" and "particle" mean something different in Newtonian theories and quantum mechanics.
3) "precisely describes" because it uses math and the math of uncertainty associated with physical measurements allows us to compare the output of theory with the observations of phenomena. Thus precision is valued and a universally more precise physical theory is valued over others.
4) "observable behavior ... of ... phenomena" because physics isn't about what things "really are" but about how phenomena behave. Physics is about testable ideas about the behavior of things, not about making untestable claims about the "why" behind the behavior. No one has ever needed to say what an electron "really is" in order to explain how radios and computers work. Even if we learn something radically new about the electron, that won't change the precision of our existing physical theories.
5) "large domain of related phenomena" because the history of physics has been one of unification. Someone observes that gasses can be compressed and the pressure goes up. Someone observes that gases can be heated and the pressure goes up. These empirical observational rules-of-thumb are unified in "the ideal gas law." These in turn are unified with chemical observations of ratios of pure substances in "atomic theory" which covers a large domain.
So because the physical theories we have today are very precise over very large domains, anything new we learn about the electron is not going to change very much the best predictions of its behavior in most circumstances. The result is that new theories ape the predictions of old theories over large parts of the shared domain because they are both describing the behavior of the same phenomena, even if their terms for describing the phenomena are very different. This commonality in how the behavior of observable phenomena are jointly described by different frameworks means that behavior is something that we can all share common experience and knowledge of, even if we never learn what an electron "really is."
And that's pretty much where science and physics stops. Plenty of people want to guess what an electron "really is" and where they are incompatible with observation, they are wrong. When their ideas aren't connected with observable behavior, they are engaged in metaphysical speculation. If they are good enough at it, they might be called philosophers.
That's why definitions matter and we'd like to hear more of your thoughts.
Buket
Registered Member
I saw in a youtube video a documentary showing the opinions of several scientists about quantum mechanics and reality. I was confused so I decided to ask these issues in forums
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Nick is that you?
I have been looking forward to meeting you.
It seems you have mixed me up with someone else.
I am not the guy you think.
And if you want to have a go be a man and say whatever you want to say about me to my face.
I am not the anti christ so I wont turn you to ash.
Get over me please.
Alex
I have been looking forward to meeting you.
It seems you have mixed me up with someone else.
I am not the guy you think.
And if you want to have a go be a man and say whatever you want to say about me to my face.
I am not the anti christ so I wont turn you to ash.
Get over me please.
Alex
Citation requested.
I thought Nicholas Hosein was Spellbound?
Ostronomos aka Parametric aka Spellbound are Nick Hosein, I think. The first post on link (below) is signed off as Nicholas Hosein...
http://www.scivillage.com/thread-2451.html
Spellbound aka Parametic...http://www.scivillage.com/thread-1355.html
And, it seems his mission on Sciforums is... ''Sciforums WILL be delivered from atheism and darkness''
http://www.scivillage.com/thread-2463.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Good luck there Alex.
Buket
Registered Member
Quantum apocalypse
Uh? Synopsis: A group of talented but rebellious 'rock-star scientists' find themselves in a race against time to save Earth when a comet makes an unexpected turn towards our blue planet where all life may cease to exist within days if our small town heroes fail to find a solution.
http://putlocker.is/watch-quantum-apocalypse-online-free-putlocker.html
Last edited:
Buket
Registered Member
No that's the movie. This is the documentary I am talking about
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No, no. I think Bw/S had it right. The move is much more plausible.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
So you are the reality guy.
It seems my question below... what is reality when everyone enjoys their own version... Could be best answered by someone such as you.
Your reality is indulge in evil actions and defamations whilst using profanity against those you hate.
Is this the type of behaviour that will be rewarded in heaven or punished in hell.
You have now before you opportunity to fight the demons and seek forgivness for some of your evil actions. You could appologise to me for mistaking my identity with someone else and for the profanities and hatred you directed to Bells and myself.
You say you fight demons in the dark of your basement which I believe but I would like to know can you show us here a fight with the demon that caused your so very bad and sinful behaviour by presenting a simple appology and recognising the reality you have me mixed up with someone else.
Alex
So the answer is: No fucking scientist said that. It was part of a bafflegab YouTube video posted years ago, quote-mined from people not afraid to use the word "consciousness" in a sentence without defining it. Thanks to Beer w/Straw for finding it. Thanks to the YouTube viewers for partially transcribing it.
[01:18]
Robert Anton Wilson: …out of millions and millions of blobs of energy and light, photons and electrons… They make up this imaginary three-dimensional solid world, which does not exist at all according to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
Robert Anton Wilson: …out of millions and millions of blobs of energy and light, photons and electrons… They make up this imaginary three-dimensional solid world, which does not exist at all according to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anton_Wilson
He holds a Ph.D. (1981) from an unaccredited institution in psychology, not physics. He's dead now. He was dead when this video appeared on YouTube 6 years ago.
By the use of clever editing, a DVD of his old lectures was edited together to appear as a single statement somehow in harmony with the other bafflegab, even though they had to chop up the first sentence.
"millions" understates the actual numbers involved. A molecule of water masses about 18 amu and contains 10 electrons. So 1 million electrons = 100 thousand water molecules = 1.8 million amu = 3 attograms of water = a droplet 8.9 nm in radius. Obviously, we have lots more than merely "millions" of electrons in our daily lives. In contrast, a barely visible droplet of water, 50000 nm in radius masses a whopping 0.52 micrograms for a total of 175 million billion electrons.
The world which does not exist at all is the Newtonian world of solid matter. According to relativity, no solid can be perfectly rigid for that would require the speed of sound to exceed the speed of light and you could break the speed of light by twirling a long-enough baton. According to quantum physics, which today we just call "physics" atoms are not solid spheres, but the Pauli exclusion principle common to all spin-1/2 particle conspires to give the illusion of solidity because the electrons of atoms do in a sense take up all of the available (phase) space available at low energy.
So he's not saying reality doesn't exist, but (without saying what it is) must be different than was assumed of 350- or 120-years ago. Since you are less than 120 years old, this should not pose a problem for you.
Last edited:
Buket
Registered Member
So you are saying he's talking nonsense
You didn't even make the effort to use a question mark, among other things. But you did, however, make an effort to post the same question on other forums.
I actually listened to the video and not once can I remember hearing- nor is it at all mentioned in the OP -quark(s).
Buket
Registered Member
Sorry for the question mark. Don't be harsh on me. We are on the same side. By the way english is not my first language.
