8
   

Perception and physical reality

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 09:05 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

An electron having the characteristics of both a wave and a particle makes little sense.

Quantum theory is an attempt to make sense of it. As far as I can tell, they haven't yet. String theory offers explanations. It's still half-baked. Most basically what it means is that if you think there are smart guys in a lab somewhere who have reality figured out... there's not.

There are lots of people trying to figure out fishing too, and it is about the only thing that actually makes me think there might Creator, and one with a sense of humor because where ever people look they find subjects of interest that become their passions... If knowledge is your passion, then knowledge does not satisfy it, but only searching for more knowledge... As with Faustus, we can never say: enough!
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 09:07 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Arjuna wrote:

The OP made perfect sense to me.


I would have expected it would do.

Sticks and stones Kenny... An insult from you is about the same as a complement from anyone else...
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 11:46 pm
@amer,
Quote:
I don't know what you have written here. I do not follow it. I can tell you one thing though as a physicist it makes little or no sense. You seem to have thrown in jargon out of context and mixed physics with fantasy.


Good...it wasn't addressed to you ! You might need to do a bit more reading and thinking on ontology and epistemology before you are able to understand my comments from outside the "physics" box. Try starting with the concept of "measurement".
0 Replies
 
ABYA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 03:28 am
What a paradox, one particle can be in two places at the same time. Not because it moves with infinate speed, but it actually is located in two places at the same time.
Logic and reason makes this difficult to comprehend.
Where is this research going to lead ?
I suspect that one day it will be discovered that the whole universe is just one particle. One particle everywhere simultaneously, if we can accept the fact that there is no speed involved and one particle can be in two places at the same time, then its not such a great leap to accept that one particle can be in an infinate number of places.
Besides it has no form, it all depends on where we discovered it.
Perhaps all that exists is just one point and everything we see is a derivitive of it.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 04:11 am
@joefromchicago,
The way I understand it, perception happens at the quantum level, where things are weird. The perception of a supra-quantum level, as you put it, is merely the input of so much quantum information that it has more meaning as conceptualized functions in our perception. We have at least five different means of measuring quantum information, corresponding to our five physical senses, and every sensory measurement is recorded in memory. The measurements are never the same, but a physical object can be the same each time you examine it because of this. The ocean is the same each time I look at it. And yet it is never the same. Colorvariations, currents that shift, wind that stirs the surface...
We could perhaps even say that our idea of reality, whatever it may be, is a metaphysical superposition of the experience of existence.

joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 08:09 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
The way I understand it, perception happens at the quantum level, where things are weird.

Indeed.

Cyracuz wrote:
The perception of a supra-quantum level, as you put it, is merely the input of so much quantum information that it has more meaning as conceptualized functions in our perception.

Well, yes and no. It's true, for instance, that everything is made of atoms, but it doesn't follow that we observe all things at an atomic level. Just because there may be observational uncertainty at the quantum level doesn't mean there's observational uncertainty at the supra-quantum level. To maintain otherwise is to reify the quantum observational model into a thing rather than a relation.

Cyracuz wrote:
We have at least five different means of measuring quantum information, corresponding to our five physical senses, and every sensory measurement is recorded in memory.

Really? You can smell at a quantum level?

Cyracuz wrote:
We could perhaps even say that our idea of reality, whatever it may be, is a metaphysical superposition of the experience of existence.

We could.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 10:42 am
@joefromchicago,
That perception happens on a quantum level is an assumption. But it is equal to the assumption that it happens on the macroscopic level. I guess it comes down to which assumption leads to the most accurate description. But we would need two complete theories to make the comparison, and all we have are works in progress.

Quote:
Just because there may be observational uncertainty at the quantum level doesn't mean there's observational uncertainty at the supra-quantum level.


It may not meat that, but that is not to say there is not observational uncertainy at the supra-quantum level. Several individuals could be subjected to the same quantum information and have observed different things. What constitutes the macrocosmos is negotiated by such individuals. And this reality is in itself a metaphysical ideal, because it is dynamic and even though we can measure it's development with great accuracy, we cannot predict how it will actually unfold beyond calculated probability.
And in that our own motives come into play, which is conscistent with the idea of memory acting as an additional stream of information by which we relate to new input. Our macrocosmic concepts of reality can perhaps be described as a function of superpositioned ideals of the definite states, derived from repeated observation of collapses into different definite states. So the macrocosmic concept of water, for instance, is a concept constructed of all the knowledge of the various states water can exist in, and all it's practical uses for us.

This is probably way beyond what quantum physics can actually acount for. Let myself get a bit carried away. But there are perhaps some practical uses for a conceptual framework of how reality occurs in the interplay of quantum phenomenon with potential for both observer and object attributes? It would have to be worked out by smarter people than me in any case...
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 09:37 pm

people we are making this FAR more complicted than is necessary

look there is a difference between the macro universe and the micro universe for a reason because they are different

a ton of lead is different from a ton of feathers , even though they weigh the same , think about it
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 09:58 pm
@north,
north wrote:


people we are making this FAR more complicted than is necessary

look there is a difference between the macro universe and the micro universe for a reason because they are different

a ton of lead is different from a ton of feathers , even though they weigh the same , think about it

That is one of the question on the test the Nazis used to give mentally suspect people to help decide who would be sterilized, and 350K of their own citizens were sterilized... So think now; What is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead??? In America it is illegal to give a person an intelligence test before giving them a job even though such people are responsible for and suffer more on the job injuries...This is a rich country... We can afford to pay some people to stay out of the way... And we should...
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 10:03 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

north wrote:


people we are making this FAR more complicted than is necessary

look there is a difference between the macro universe and the micro universe for a reason because they are different

a ton of lead is different from a ton of feathers , even though they weigh the same , think about it

That is one of the question on the test the Nazis used to give mentally suspect people to help decide who would be sterilized, and 350K of their own citizens were sterilized... So think now; What is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead??? In America it is illegal to give a person an intelligence test before giving them a job even though such people are responsible for and suffer more on the job injuries...This is a rich country... We can afford to pay some people to stay out of the way... And we should...


don't get your point ?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 10:08 pm
@north,
north wrote:

Fido wrote:

north wrote:


people we are making this FAR more complicted than is necessary

look there is a difference between the macro universe and the micro universe for a reason because they are different

a ton of lead is different from a ton of feathers , even though they weigh the same , think about it

That is one of the question on the test the Nazis used to give mentally suspect people to help decide who would be sterilized, and 350K of their own citizens were sterilized... So think now; What is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead??? In America it is illegal to give a person an intelligence test before giving them a job even though such people are responsible for and suffer more on the job injuries...This is a rich country... We can afford to pay some people to stay out of the way... And we should...


don't get your point ?
I do not think you get basic concepts like weight, or you would not say what you said: think about it...
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 10:16 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

north wrote:

Fido wrote:

north wrote:


people we are making this FAR more complicted than is necessary

look there is a difference between the macro universe and the micro universe for a reason because they are different

a ton of lead is different from a ton of feathers , even though they weigh the same , think about it

That is one of the question on the test the Nazis used to give mentally suspect people to help decide who would be sterilized, and 350K of their own citizens were sterilized... So think now; What is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead??? In America it is illegal to give a person an intelligence test before giving them a job even though such people are responsible for and suffer more on the job injuries...This is a rich country... We can afford to pay some people to stay out of the way... And we should...


don't get your point ?
I do not think you get basic concepts like weight, or you would not say what you said: think about it...


okay I don't

your point
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 11:45 pm
This thread seems to have taken a sudden turn into a swamp !

One reason macro and micro levels are different is not as North said "because they are different" Rolling Eyes ...it is because at the micro level the "neutral" media of macro observation (like light) interact with the phenomenon being observed. Its like trying to cut cheese with cheese. This in turn leads to major physical and philosophical issues about the status of the observer with respect to the observed.

north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 11:56 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

This thread seems to have taken a sudden turn into a swamp !

One reason macro and micro levels are different is not as North said "because they are different" Rolling Eyes ...it is because at the micro level the "neutral" media of macro observation (like light) interact with the phenomenon being observed. Its like trying to cut cheese with cheese. This in turn leads to major physical and philosophical issues about the status of the observer with respect to the observed.


disagree

the accumulation of the micro produce the macro

so quarks > atoms > molecules > asteriods > comets > galaxies > suns > planets > moons

all without any observer involved
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 12:18 am
@north,
Laughing
..... so enjoy your swamp !

solipsister
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 12:42 am
@fresco,
perception of the imperceptible mmm science huh
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 12:56 am
@solipsister,
Actually "the observation of observation" has been approached as an aspect of "systems theory". If interested try googling "Second Order Cybernetics".
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 03:38 am
@north,
north wrote:

Fido wrote:

north wrote:

Fido wrote:

north wrote:


people we are making this FAR more complicted than is necessary

look there is a difference between the macro universe and the micro universe for a reason because they are different

a ton of lead is different from a ton of feathers , even though they weigh the same , think about it

That is one of the question on the test the Nazis used to give mentally suspect people to help decide who would be sterilized, and 350K of their own citizens were sterilized... So think now; What is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead??? In America it is illegal to give a person an intelligence test before giving them a job even though such people are responsible for and suffer more on the job injuries...This is a rich country... We can afford to pay some people to stay out of the way... And we should...


don't get your point ?
I do not think you get basic concepts like weight, or you would not say what you said: think about it...


okay I don't

your point
You are right... That is my point... How many does that give me??? Is anyone keeping score???
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 06:34 am
@north,
There's a problem with saying that the universe works differently at different levels. That's counter intuitive. If that claim is made, it begs some explanation.

The idea that consciousness is the home of the collapse of the waveform is a popular idea about QM. Amer pointed out that physicists these days generally don't accept that.

But if it were true, it would mean that if you're alone, the things that are directly behind you, and therefore unobserved, have no position or other characteristics. Not until you turn around and look at a table, for instance, does the table appear out of the the cloud, and it does so because you looked at it. This drastically alters the meaning of objectivity, which gives us a map of the world around us in three dimensions. It would mean the contents of the map aren't "there" the way we think they are.

Amer explained that the common idea in QM these days is that events other than conscious observation can make things pop into a state of actuality (actuality being defined as a state in which matter has a 0% chance of being anywhere other than where it is.) He said that physicists have the idea of there being two "realities." One is a set of actualities. The other is a cloud of possibilities. For our purposes, they're distinguished by measurability. Actualities are measurable, the cloud is not. Amer says the actualities are accessible to consciousness, the cloud is not.

But is that true? As we think rationally, we're continuously considering alternate possibilities. Is this the fundamental state of reality impinging on consciousness? Amer's opinion on that would be interesting.

To me, it seems that the two realities amer spoke of are fixtures of the mind. They were prior to QM. The only difference is that with the advent of QM, we started examining the nature of that which we previously would have said is nonexistent. When we say the cloud is nonexistent, I think that's because we're thinking of the individual possibilities as if they are phantom actualities, each one in its own universe. So an irreconcilible conflict is set up that's inherent in considering hypothetical events. We say they aren't real, but the only way to focus on them is to imagine that they are real in a fantasy. That's how you end up thinking about something that doesn't exist.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 08:39 am
@north,
Quote:
so quarks > atoms > molecules > asteriods > comets > galaxies > suns > planets > moons

all without any observer involved


This is an assumption, and it is not even supported by scientific theory. If you remove the human observer, how would you say that the concept "moon" has any meaning?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 06/25/2024 at 11:41:44