The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

@argome321,

Quote:

I Believe Schrodinger was somewhat saying the same thing in his though experiment to some degree.

I agree. Schrödinger's cat was drummed up as a criticism of QM, showing the absurdity of some of its implications.

What's funny now, I think, is that many people cite it as if Schrödinger was describing an "actual fact," and suggest that it proves the "truth" of absurdity.

From wiki:

Quote:

the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the box is opened. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Just curious, Frank...it there a reason why all of your posts are in bold. It "sounds" like you're shouting, ya know?

I post in bold because I want to post in bold...among other personal reasons.

If it sounds like "shouting" to you...I can assure you it is not. I am sorry there in an Internet convention that makes bold or capitalizing seem like shouting...but I think the context is also important.

Read what I have just written here. Other than the bold...is there anything that seems like shouting?

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

layman wrote:

Just curious, Frank...it there a reason why all of your posts are in bold. It "sounds" like you're shouting, ya know?

This has been mentioned before.

And I have responded before.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

By the way, Layman...I would appreciate your comments on what I wrote about "empirical basis"...since what you wrote inspired me to write what I wrote.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I post in bold because I want to post in bold...among other personal reasons.

Fine, Frank, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just mentioning the affect or impression it might have on others.

I COULD, I SUPPOSE, START PUBLISHING ALL MY POSTS IN THIS MANNER.

I could, but, for personal reasons, I won't.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

"...since what you wrote inspired me to write what I wrote.

Glad you were inspired, Frank. However, nothing I said in my post was pretending to talk about "ultimate reality."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I post in bold because I want to post in bold...among other personal reasons.

Fine, Frank, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just mentioning the affect or impression it might have on others.

I COULD, I SUPPOSE, START PUBLISHING ALL MY POSTS IN THIS MANNER.

I could, but, for personal reasons, I won't.

Sounds good to me, Layman. I certainly will not lose any sleep over it if you decide to do it. And if you did...and have a personal reason for it...I would champion your right to do so without you getting static about it.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I post in bold because I want to post in bold...among other personal reasons.

Fine, Frank, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just mentioning the affect or impression it might have on others.

I COULD, I SUPPOSE, START PUBLISHING ALL MY POSTS IN THIS MANNER.

I could, but, for personal reasons, I won't.

I'm guessing that your personal reasons include that you don't want to be stubbornly overbearing and brow-beating. Just a guess, mind you. But thanks for that, anyway. Even when you and I don't see eye-t0-eye, I don't walk away with the feeling that I've just been yelled at by my parent(s). Instead, I feel like we've had a mutually respectful exchange and decided to agree to disagree. Hard to do that with the other person yelling and trying to shove their ideas down your throat.

Edit: By the way, I have Frank on "Ignore" for this very reason. I don't put up with being yelled at in daily life; I don't see any reason to put up with it online.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
"...since what you wrote inspired me to write what I wrote.

Glad you were inspired, Frank. However, nothing I said in my post was pretending to talk about "ultimate reality."

Actually, what you said was:

Quote:

The same goes for many other branches of what is presented as "physical science" these days, but which is really just math combined with speculation about things with no empirical basis whatsoever.

You seem to be suggesting that some branches of what is presented as "physical science" these days would be the better if there were an "empirical basis" involved...apparently as opposed to "speculation."

I am wonder why anyone, including you, would think that...considering that "speculation" is, and always has been, an almost indispensable component of good science.

If you prefer not to answer...fine.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

layman wrote:

Quote:
I post in bold because I want to post in bold...among other personal reasons.

Fine, Frank, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just mentioning the affect or impression it might have on others.

I COULD, I SUPPOSE, START PUBLISHING ALL MY POSTS IN THIS MANNER.

I could, but, for personal reasons, I won't.

I'm guessing that your personal reasons include that you don't want to be stubbornly overbearing and brow-beating. Just a guess, mind you. But thanks for that, anyway. Even when you and I don't see eye-t0-eye, I don't walk away with the feeling that I've just been yelled at by my parent(s). Instead, I feel like we've had a mutually respectful exchange and decided to agree to disagree. Hard to do that with the other person yelling and trying to shove their ideas down your throat.

My "personal reasons" are that I often look up what I have written in previous posts...and the bold feature makes my posts stand out from the other posts more easily as I scroll though the threads.

I've had several mini and minor strokes during the last couple of years...and my sight has been severely impaired. It is something I just did not want to share (way too much, "feel sorry for me" on the Internet")...but I figured I will do so here to see if we can all get past this.

There have been several posters who use the bold feature regularly....and I have never seen any of them questioned for doing so. I'm not sure why so many have been bothered by me doing it...but it is not meant as yelling in any way (something I try not to do at any time)...and it certainly is not meant to be insulting.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you prefer not to answer...fine.

I don't mind answering, or at least trying to. I say "trying" because I'm not sure I fully understand your question, not because I think such questions are "unanswerable."

Quote:

...considering that "speculation" is, and always has been, an almost indispensable component of good science.

There has always been a valid distinction which is made between "theoretical" and "experimental" science. "Good science" is not just either one, or the other. An empirical basis for theory, combined with empirical verification (or at least the possibility of such verification) of the implications of a theory has generally been considered to be an indispensable aspect of what is called "science." You said it yourself. Theoretical postulations are merely a "component" of science, not the whole.

You can dispense with the empirical element, if you want. Just don't call it "science." Maybe "mysticism" would be a more appropriate description, if you want to dispense with all empirical elements.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I'm not sure why so many have been bothered by me doing it...but it is not meant as yelling in any way (something I try not to do at any time)...and it certainly is not meant to be insulting.

Fair enough, Frank. Like I said at the outset, I was just "curious." I wasn't trying to pry into your personal affairs. But you have satisfied my curiosity, so thanks.

0 Replies

@layman,

I said:

Quote:

Theoretical postulations are merely a "component" of science, not the whole.

By way of elaboration, I might add that theoretical postulations are absolutely essential to science. Without them, there would be no science. Some people go too far in the other direction, and start thinking that empirical observation, standing alone, is "science."

Fraid not.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

I said:

Quote:
Theoretical postulations are merely a "component" of science, not the whole.

By way of elaboration, I might add that theoretical postulations are absolutely essential to science. Without them, there would be no science. Some people go too far in the other direction, and start thinking that empirical observation, standing alone, is "science."

Fraid not.

We are shoulder to shoulder on this one, Layman.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Even when you and I don't see eye-t0-eye, I don't walk away with the feeling that I've just been yelled at by my parent(s). Instead, I feel like we've had a mutually respectful exchange and decided to agree to disagree.

Likewise, FBM. We were having a discussion in another thread. I posed a question to you there, which you have not responded to. Should I take that as your decision to "agree to disagree," and to refrain from further discussion on that topic?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Should I ....refrain from further discussion on that topic

The question, is CAN a high school drop out refrain from inflicting turgid self-valedictory cathartic exercises on others?
Queheniaomath can't ! Can you ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Best take your juvenile trolling elsewhere, Fresco.

I ain't bitin.

I might add the observation, however, that you do bite. I figured that someone like you might try to portray my drop-out joke as SERIOUS BUSINESS to be used for "impeachment."

0 Replies

@layman,

Layman says that "Some people go too far in the other direction, and start thinking that empirical observation, standing alone, is "science."
I agree: facts do not speak for themselves; they require interpretation, and this usually--in the context of scientific investigation, at least--occurs within a framework of "theoretical postulations" (i.e., observations referring to concepts and vice versa).

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Layman says that "Some people go too far in the other direction, and start thinking that empirical observation, standing alone, is "science."
I agree: facts do not speak for themselves; they require interpretation, and this usually--in the context of scientific investigation, at least--occurs within a framework of "theoretical postulations" (i.e., observations referring to concepts and vice versa).

Nicely put

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

My "personal reasons" are that I often look up what I have written in previous posts...and the bold feature makes my posts stand out from the other posts more easily as I scroll though the threads.

I've had several mini and minor strokes during the last couple of years...and my sight has been severely impaired. It is something I just did not want to share (way too much, "feel sorry for me" on the Internet")...but I figured I will do so here to see if we can all get past this.

There have been several posters who use the bold feature regularly....and I have never seen any of them questioned for doing so. I'm not sure why so many have been bothered by me doing it...but it is not meant as yelling in any way (something I try not to do at any time)...and it certainly is not meant to be insulting.

Thank you for explaining that, Frank. i also, often see emboldened or enlarged fonts posted online as "yelling" or aggressive in intent (tboth have become online conventions), but your honest, alternate explanation for your practice encourages me to question the motive behind it in a different, and in an unexpected, more human, and potentially positive, way.

2 Replies

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know