Do we or do we not live in a Matrix?

The real issue here is the difference between Physics (as a hard mathematical science) and Philosophy.

Physics is math. If you study Physics you will primarily study mathematics. When scientists make discoveries in Physics, or express ideas in mathematics, they are working with mathematics and talking in the language of mathematics.

The reason for this is that Physics, as a hard science, is based on things that are testable. Any other language relies on metaphor, and nuance and shades of meaning. Human languages are by nature inexact and open to interpretation. Mathematics gives an answer that is testable and exact.

Philosophy depends on metaphor and meaning. Ideas can be taken and manipulated, two people can say the same thing with different meanings and different understandings. Many of the findings of Philosophy are untestable and ambiguous. I have no problem with Philosophy. If we are debating the existing of some celestial computer as a philosophical exercise... then fine with me. The ideas are interesting and the consequences are fun to think about... particularly the idea of the Creator of such computer is fascinating.

The mixture of these philosophical musings with a misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics is unnecessary. You can muse about a celestial computer without pop-science misunderstanding of scientific terms.

You can't take Quantum Mechanics (a hard science) away from the mathematics. Every concept in Quantum Mechanics is carefully defined mathematically. A English language understanding may work as metaphor, but it is an imperfect metaphor. What counts is the mathematics.

That's my beef. If you don't understand the mathematics (based on differential equations and linear algebra) then you don't really understand anything about Quantum Mechanics. There is an English language metaphor... but understanding a metaphor doesn't count as real understanding.

So why not just have the philosophical musings without the pseudo-science? I don't think I am asking too much.

This.

I not going to declare defeat before I even tried. I might not devote the next 20 years of my life to understanding Quantum Mechanics, but I am fascinated enough to want to learn whatever I can.

I found an online copy of In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. So far I am enjoying it.

I am glad you are enjoying it Debra.

Just to clarify... there is nothing wrong with reading about the fascinating and strange results of Quantum Mechanics without studying the advanced mathematics behind it. Of course, you should understand that you are getting a metaphor... someone's attempt to explain the mathematics... not the actual science. But some writers have done a very good job (others not so much).

My objection is to people haven't studied the mathematics pretending to have expertise in Quantum Mechanics... based only on the metaphor. The metaphor is imperfect and often misleading if you take it too far.

Have fun.

Here let me bring you a teenager to teach you some basic physics and why the argument is being made as we speak and is valid. You either are a monumental ignoramus or definitely a troll with very little self esteem !

Now lets go to the experts. Please note that they are being literal not metaphorical.

Lets follow with a Nobel laureate in Physics now: (please follow the 5 videos this is just the 1)

That's Argument by YouTube video.

There is no defense to argument by youtube video.

Fil,

The name-calling and personal attacks are really not necessary.

You feel that one can reach some level of understanding of Quantum Physics from watching YouTube videos. I feel that doing the work to understand the underlying mathematics, as I did when I earned my Physics degree, is important to any real understanding..

I don't mind you stating your opinion... I will state mine and we can discuss the topic. That's is fine.

There is no need for the personal attacks.

You are the kind of guy who would argue I would have to know all the set of prime numbers to understand what a prime number is. You argument is so weak that its barely worth addressing. You resorted to lying by stating scientists were using metaphor so there is no reason why I can't call on your bullshit. Your understanding of physics is the same understanding an accountant has of economics. I can confidently say I probably understand better physics then you do. I am open to discuss any field of physics you feel worth debating. In your shoes I would go learn some stuff about computers before I embarrass myself any further.

PS - Now I understand all the irony in the appeal to civilized exchange of ideas thread...

Really Fil. I earned a degree in Physics... this means that I spent 7 years in college studying math and science including a couple of classes specifically on Quantum Mechanics. I did the math, I spent time in the labs, I took the tests and I wrote the papers.

How did you get your understanding of physics (other than YouTube videos)?

1) It is impossible to understand what a prime number is if you don't first understand multiplication and division.

It is impossible to understand quantum mechanics if you don't understand differential equations. Linear Algebra is also used quite a bit in Quantum Mechanics because it is very useful... but underneath the linear algebra are differential equations.

2) I have been quite civil during this discussion. I have stated my opinion and I have made my points without any personal attacks.

The only name-calling or personal attacks on this this thread have come from you, Fil.