Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
Yes but the metaphor applies to all of the dualities. The wave/particle duality just happens to be one of the easier ones to illustrate. The observers choices and even the experiment itself determine in large part what type of results we will get.
You seem to be trying to go beyond the results of the experiments. As far as I know, that is unknown territory : ) If you know of a way to test the many worlds theory, or string theory, etc. that would be great. Better yet it would be nice to unify Relativity and QM that would answer a ton of questions.
I tend to agree with the emergent properties theories though and don't think we are going to unify everything. For example ice, water and vapor are the same molecule but they each have distinct characteristics depending on the phase change.
Give me one example of knowledge that you consider certain (other than "death" and "taxes" — LOL!), and then tell me how you know it's certain; i.e., What is the basis or criterion on which your "certainty" rests?
Did you have a chance to find the link re: the uncertainty principle that you offered to share with me?
No, it is a mathematical object. As such, it is not subject to considerations of energy, time, position, or momentum.
“Give me one example of knowledge that you consider certain (other than “death” and “taxes” — LOL!), and then tell me how you know it’s certain; i.e., What is the basis or criterion on which your “certainty” rests?”
I can give you hundreds of examples, but for starters:
Heavier than air human flight is possible is certainly known. Until the Wright brothers proved it, academics and “scientists” were writing “scholarly” papers proving it was impossible.
How about anesthesia. Not possible and “evil” according to a number of religious people. I believe the truth that anesthesia is not only possible, but practiced regularly has been proven by experience.
Another is wireless communication. I think that has been proven beyond doubt. Don’t you? It was certainly doubted before Tesla (and Marconi, though Tesla is now given the well deserved credit for first having demonstrated it).
There are no end of things we know with certainty. As for how I know them, if anyone does not know them it is because they suffer some kind of extreme retardation or are in some other way mentally deficient.
Here are some examples of why the “uncertainty” principle is in doubt:
The Uncertainty Principle Is Untenable
http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol004.002/13_letter_gong.html
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm
The Dark Age of the Uncertainty Principle
http://knol.google.com/k/claes-johnson/the-dark-age-of-the-uncertainty/yvfu3xg7d7wt/69#
Why Schrödinger Hated His Equation
http://knol.google.com/k/claes-johnson/why-schrdinger-hated-his-equation/yvfu3xg7d7wt/38#
It amazes me that some people believe nothing is certain, and base it on their credulity about the “uncertainty” principle. If nothing is certain, how can the uncertainty principle be certain.
By the way, I’m not trying to convince you, just answering your questions. Have a pleasant evening, friend. I know it’s eveing for you, since I live in N.H.
Hank
You give me examples, but not the "how" involved.
That's not an evasion. I'll "guess" at the "how" since you didn't disclose it: Newtonian mechanics predicts heavier-than-air flight is possible, and this has been confirmed by repeated observations.
Yet Newtonian mechanics itself is not universally "exact" in all situations such that its predictions can be expected to be 100% correct all the time. In our 4D world, it's "good enuf for scratch" in applications involving mechanical systems. There is, however, an emerging skepticism regarding its universal applicability, especially to such important questions as consciousness and life itself.
But without universality, it can afford no certainty. The only "certainty" regarding heavier-than-air flight ultimately rests, not on the Newtonian formalism, but on consensus in observation. Which ultimately puts the burden of proof on the reliability and trustworthiness of human perception. How trustworthy is that? It may be "good enuf for scratch," but that is not sufficient to establish certainty.
How certain can we really be that our perceptions of the world actually directly and truthfully "map" to the world external to our own minds? Both Hume and Kant pointed out that this is something human beings simply cannot know. So if observation (perception) is your standand criterion for establishing "certainty," that criterion rests on something which is fundamentally unknowable in principle, simply because there is no way for us to ascertain how close a match there is between the manner in which we perceive and the object that we perceive. We take it on faith that there is a match, and that it is strong enough to constitute useful knowledge of the world. But "strong enough" and "certainty" are clearly not the same things.
IOW, we could say that most of the time, perception gets it right. But that is hardly enough to assert complete certainty.
To the extent that these might affect the apparent motion of the Sun as viewed from the Earth at all, the effect is negligible compared to the apparent motion of the Sun due to the Earth's rotation. For the purposes of our thought experiment, we can consider the Sun to be stationary WRT an inertial frame.
It is always a good day when we are humbled. Humility is something in which I am sorely lacking and for which I need to remember to pray every day.
God bless.
“You give me examples, but not the “how” involved.”
The “how” has nothing to do with Newton. And it has nothing to do with repeated observations. The how has to do only with the fact that it’s been done, and it only needed to be done once.
Do you have any doubts at all that heavier than air human flight is possible?
That’s the certaintly.
Have you ever seen a plane flying. Be honest; do you doubt it was really flying?
I think you are desparate to make knowledge uncertain. I cannot imagine why, but I think it is very dangerous. Why would you object to certainty in knowledge? Certainty in knowledge doesn’t mean you know everything, or even most things, it only means there are some things you can be absolutely certain about. If that were not the case, you would really know nothing.
Hank
Do you seriously disagree with astronomical measurements since the 1960's?
IOW, one may postulate the Sun as a hypothetically stationary object for his thought experiment and the math will work. He may transform coordinates.
But CMB measurements from the 1960's forward confirm that the Sun is not stationary. Nothing in the universe is stationary. Space/time itself is expanding.
But Zero Sum's postulation would not "entail" that the Sun must "agree" to stand still, so to accommodate his/her thought experiment.
So what's the point of the thought experiment?
As it stands, it has no "stationary object," no anchor or criterion according to which its phenomena can be compared and judged. JMHO FWIW
Good grief, man!!! Doesn't one have to "go beyond the results of experiments", if one wants to understand one's world and one's place in it?
I mean, think about it: No experiment ever designs itself. Yet at the same time, the source of the experimental design is itself undetectable by experimental means. Does this prove there is no source?
And you'd stake a future on such flimsy grounds??? Done, but only once???
I may be a dim-witted, knuckle-dragging Christian, but I have to tell you: I require more substantial evidence than "done, but only once." We call that a "datum." It has no meaning whatever in isolation.
I'm trying to decoct your statement. Thought I'm not entirely certain of its meaning, I'll take my best stab at answering.
On the one hand, I am perfectly comfortable with the uncertainty of knowledge. It just reminds me that nothing is complete without God.
On the other hand, I have no objection in principle to the "certainty of knowledge." I just don't think it's possible, given that the human mind is finite.
Thus the assertion of "certain knowledge" is a pure abstraction to me, for it has no basis in actual reality that I can tell. The "empirical approach" demonstrates that the typical human situation involves having to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. This is seemingly the universal human condition.
And thus on the basis of observation and experience, I have no reason to believe that "the certainty of knowledge" is even possible.
Well, lets take your Many Worlds theory. Do you really believe that an infinite number of universes are coming into existence every moment?
Or do you believe the more plausible theory that wave functions collapse?
The problem is how precisely do we actually know and that is where the uncertainty comes in. If someone gives you a pound of Gold and a pound of rice. I think that I can confidently say that the pound of rice will be accurate to within an ounce and that the pound of Gold will be an accurate measurement within tenths of Grams. The problem is that we don't have a precise measurement of mass, we can only measure it to 10 digits, give or take a few.
It turns out that there is a level of uncertainty to everything, nothing can be known to an arbitrarily precise number. It turns out that things like Plank's constant set an absolute limit on what can be known. It is a very, very small limit I will grant you, but a lot of very small uncertainties do add up : )
Merry go rounds work as well and the point is easily made that the earth is revolving while the merry go round is spinning, that Newtonian physics are local with reference to the universe - non inertial frames invoke so called "fictitious forces."
"In the beginning..." ...a datum? ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.