The control of one subatomic particle

"Existence is anything at all which we know to be real from our conscious experience and reasoning."

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

"Good is anything at all which man at least LIKES, as to strive to possess and enjoy." [17 words]

"Evil is anything at all which man at least DISLIKES, and strives to avoid or overcome." [16 words]

See for example my post in this link:
https://able2know.org/topic/394567-5#post-6462891.
___________________________

Dear readers, I am asking Max:

“Okay, Max, tell me what is my argument here, okay, and how it is wrong, okay?”



My purpose in this thread is to exchange thoughts with others on the existence of subatomic particles, in particular that quantum mechanics weirdness by which a particle exists in two places at the same time.

Now, I notice that from the start Max uses the words magic and magical thinking on my thinking here, which I am at an ordeal trying to convey to him to just not bring up those words: because they are used by atheists as code words in pseudo argument on the issue God exists or not, and that is no argument whatsoever from atheists.

In fact the way I see atheists in their exposition versus God, it is all nothing of any cognitive substance but evasiveness with disingenuous words, by which they distract themselves but in bad faith, and hope to distract mankind also, from the very core of the issue of God exists or not.

If they really want to take up the issue God exists or not, no need to resort to repetition everywhere and everytime, with the use of the words magic and magical thinking.

Just keep to truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence.

Now, I am asking Max, to bring up what to him is my argument here in this thread and how it is not correct or it is not valid, but please dear Max, no more repeating the words magic and magical thinking.

Keep to truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence.

Okay, dear readers, let us sit back and await the reply of Max to my request that he bring up what to him is my argument in this thread, and tell me how it is wrong or invalid.

Sorry, you might be waiting a long time. Dear readers, Max is bored with this topic.

Dear Max:

I was thinking that you want to talk about ideas.



You see, dear Max, when I ask you to talk about my argument, you back out.

I will be personal with you unless you are not a person but a robot.

You like to talk what you imagine is above and beyond folks like what you want to see me to be, what is that with me?

Tell me and I will not be offended, in fact I will take it for my self-study to see whether I can use some self-improvement from your regard about my person.

But when you are challenged by me directly to talk ideas as you also made out that you do care to talk about ideas, and as you also did say that my argument whatever that is, is not valid: then you get scared stiff, yes that is ad hominem, to the person that is, you.

So, are you going to bring up what to you is my argument in this thread, and tell me and readers what is wrong with it, or why it is invalid?

Now, I will welcome you to address me as I address you, to the person that is me and that is you, or in wrongly understood most of the times by naive folks, ad hominem, meaning literally to the person, but I dare say wrongly understood that it is to insult the person.

Ad hominem, as I said in another thread, literally means to the person.

What about examining what are the personal factors involved, which move a person like for example an atheist or a theist to take up a cognitive position?

Or to claim i.e. to take up the guise of getting bored with an issue?

Okay, dear readers here, let us sit back and await to observe whether Max will be personally moved, instead of playing the bored but overly pompous by self-evaluation poster here.

Tell you what, dear Max, you are scared stiff to do genuine thinking with me.

Okay, do with me as I do with you, then we can really go into ideas, okay?

Or you are really scared stiff when the challenge is nakedly hurled at you, to do ideas with me.

I tell you, dear readers, I predict the man will run away and stay away.

And gripe that I am getting personal, and he is what, a robot?

All for comic relief, though, dear Max: you be my witnesses dear readers.

Dear readers here, I will dispense myself from thinking about Max for the time being, because he has gotten again bored with himself - hehehehehehe.

Now, my purpose here is to get to learn from others who think better than I think.

And modesty aside, I take myself to be into genuine thinking, that which consists in thinking over a thing or an idea: on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

This thread is about the control of one subatomic particle, it is dealing with the socalled quantum mechanics weirdness features, like that a subatomic particle exists in two places at the same time.

My focus here is on existence, in fact the investigation of existence is my present concentration for many years now.

So, when I read the thoughts of quantum mechanics experts, in most particular with its weirdness features, I ask myself and also anyone at all who do know something at all about quantum mechanics, what kind of existence are these experts in quantum mechanics talking about?

An example of existence is the nose in our face, that is certainly existing.

Now, what kind of existence at all are these quantum mechanics experts into with their weirdness features of quantum mechanics, so weird in fact that one most famed and also teacher of quantum mechanics at all, to wit Feynman(?), declares to the following effect:
"If anyone thinks that he understands quantum mechanics, then he does not know what he is talking about."

What we all humans are talking about, it is always about something in existence: somewhere, sometime, somehow, and from origin by some entity also itself with existence.

I was expecting to exchange ideas with Max, but he turns out to be so pompous over nothing except his own fascination with his self-importance; whatever he thinks of himself, it must be something that he is bored with already: that is why he now stays away.

I hope that motivates him to come back, if for nothing but to do himself a favor, by telling everyone here, that he is not useless here, in re contributing to the advancement of useful knowledge for mankind.

There, dear readers, that is an ad hominem to Max, meaning I am targeting his self-respect, that he will redeem it.

So, let us sit back and await to observe whether Max will bite the bait and engage me in ideas, that is what he says earlier, namely: "Let us talk about ideas," says he.

I am no expert in QM, but I have learnt a thing or two about human language. To cut to the quick, no word has 'meaning' except with respect to contexts of human interaction and that includes the word 'existence'. With respect to the background of 'pragmatism' and 'the coherence theory of truth' , no word on its own is a token for any 'thing' or 'state of being' independent of human usage ( the latter being a position taken by 'a correspondence theory of truth' , 'naive realism' and 'facts independent of observers).

Thus your apparent quest to pin down the concept of a subatomic particle in terms of 'properties' of macro 'objects' is futile. The word 'particle has pragmatic usage only in terms of its status in the coherence of the mathematics which predicts a range of related contextual experimental results.

And in case you think this 'weirdness' is confined to QM, you might for example consider the use of 'imaginary numbers' in familiar electricity transmission systems. Nor indeed should you consider 'logic' to be confined to the classical (binary) form subject to the law of 'the excluded middle'.


The philosophical evolution of these points starts with Kant's point (that we are confined to phenomena), and proceeds through Nietszche (we cannot get beyond 'useful description') through to Bohr and the Copenhagen convention (that the observer is co - existensive with the observed). in addition, reference can be made to the prevailing 'anti -representationalist' views on language ( e.g.Wittgenstein, Quine, Rorty).

... BTW the phrase 'objective reality' which you used somewhere above is meaningless from a Nietszchean and Pragmatists pov. It has currency only in terms of 'a consensus negotiation' with respect to human interaction. Insofar that humans as a species have by definition, a common perceptual system and many common needs, negotiation is normally not required.

Fresco says:

Dear Fresco, let us go to the nose in our face, when I punch you hard in your nose as to make it bleed, that is existence of your nose bleeding, yes or no.

So, please abstain from a lot of baloney philosophizing, if you get what I mean.

Okay, tell me when you get what I mean.

There is a lot of baloney philosophizing even in quantum mechanics, in re existence or non-existence, and existence in this or that baloney philosophizing, no matter that you bring in a lot of baloney philosophers whose nose will bleed as any nose with us humans will bleed: when you or I punch it very hard, or bang it against a concrete wall.

All the things in the event of punching the nose in our face, or banging it against a concrete wall hard, all of them exist without any baloney philosophizing by which its existence in our objective reality is what, challenged - baloney!!!!!

Dear Fresco, please don’t go away, for I hope to learn something from you that is not borrowed from baloney philosophers, even though these guys get to be expansively published and commented on, or even commended on, for their baloneys.

Guys like Nietzsche and his ilk, who think philosophy is nothing but expression of their pet wishes and/or pet peeves.

You will say I am into ad hominens, correct!

Because these baloney philosophers are not keeping in their heart and mind, that the nose is not and cannot be baloney-ed at all, in regard to its objective existence outside of their baloney philosophizing.

Now, readers here, see if Fresco will still be around, I predict he will be gone also instead of thinking with me on: what is existence and where it is at all.

I want to learn from him and everyone, but please know what is baloney and what is objective reality, instead of getting reality all conflated with baloneys in our mind, or swallowed bait, hook, sinker, line, and rod from these baloney philosophers.

'Existance' is NOT a word / concept that is ever used when there is no disagreement about what constitutes 'reality'. Your 'nose' example is a such a case. We all know and agree how the word is used, i.e. how tt is useful to us . But when it comes to 'gods' or 'subatomic particles' naive realists erroneously attempt to appeal to some inaccessible 'realm of reality' on which they think 'existence' depends, instead of merely looking at the contextual utility of the word.
Thus 'God' exists for believers because it is useful to them in their communicative contexts and subsequent actions, wheras for atheist the concept is useless. Arguments based on 'evidence' are futile (despite what some atheists think) because 'evidence' lies in the eye of the beholder as far as 'God' is concerned.

In the case of ' subatomic particles', Bohr had already asserted that there was 'no quantum world' as in the case of 'everyday things' and that there was merely 'experimental evidence' which made the conjecture of such a world 'useful'.

So the 'balony' clearly lies in the camp of naive realists who are ignorant about the operation of human language and how frontier science progresses using the metalanguage of mathematics.

You only have to look at the rise and demise of scientific concepts like 'phlogisten' or 'the aether' to understand the transient nature of what we humans call 'facts'(from Latin facere - to construct.)

I doubt whether what you call 'you' can learn anything from the above, since that 'you' has pinned its 'self integrity' on naive realism in which tautologically requires 'existence' to be absolute. Of course it takes both brains and courage accept that absolute 'objective reality' is merely a human psychological palliative concept, and it remains to be seen whether that 'you' can free itself from its conditioning. The 'evidence' so far with respect to this particular context, in which 'you' engage in semi-ritual repetition of phrases indicates a negative prognosis. All that ' you' has presented above is a simplistic 'straw man' diatribe of zero intellectual depth.

Susmario,
Read this carefully. Don't take this as an insult but learn from it. These things are beyond me as well, but understanding is something to aspire to, not to insult and reject.

An encouraging observation thanks ! The issues above are well covered by the authors cited, the study of whom tends to deflate one's concept of 'self integrity' to one of a healthy scepticism which puts it beyond 'insult'. Your phrase 'beyond me' would be appropriate from that point of view even though probably not so intended !
(NB Heidegger for example argued that 'self' is absent most of the time in which 'being' operates automatically in a type 'seamless coping'. The self (Dasein) is evoked when that coping is interrupted by events and a social 'subject' begins verbally contemplating focal 'objects'. Next time you find yourself 'wrongly' taking a habitual road because you were on 'automatic', you might begin to understand this. )

BTW Forget about 'dictionary definitions' at this level of discourse. The infinite regress of words defining words can only be transcended by considering shifting contextual usage. It is the abstract persistence of 'words' which suggests the concrete persistence of 'objects' evoked by word usage (which is the essence of what we call 'thinking'). The ontologocal error is to assume that the persitence resides in 'the thing' itself rather than our human expectancies of a continuing relationship with 'the thing' as conceptualized by a single word. This point needs to be critically considered against the adage that 'all is in flux'.
Note too that humans can be distinguished from other species by their apparent superior ability to 'predict and control',which they accomplish via their unique 'languaging behavior'. Only humans appear to have a concept of 'consequences' and this speaks volumes with respect to human issues of morality and religion.

Thanks everyone for your reactions to my thinking.

Here is what I have been saying time and again, in particular with atheists.



This is going now to irk some of you dear colleagues, but we are talking about existence in this thread, in particular the existence of a subatomic particle in two places at the same time, as experts of quantum mechanics inform us.

So, I have my concept of what is existence, and thereby also what is reality.

May I just propose that you all tell me what is your concept of existence, and also of course, reality?

You see, it is my idea that unless we get to concur on concepts at all, we are conducting ourselves irrationally by - for not getting our concepts concurred on - talking past each other's head.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await to read the concept of what is existence, from all posters who participate in this thread.

Dear colleagues here, when you do have a concept of existence, just draft it in less than 30 words, and put it at the top of your message.

Now, please do your very own personal thinking.

When you get your thinking from others, just to be immune from charges of plagiarism, just mention what you appropriated it from others, but no need to mention your sources, and wherefore no need either to provide any internet links or any bibliographical data of your sources.

You see, we or I care for us all to talk from our very own personal thinking, or at least appropriated as your very own, the thinking of other humans.

Why I propose that you just mention you get your thinking from others and appropriated it i.e. adopted it as your very own, but no need to bring in names at all?

It is because we don't want to be into discussing what a source really says about what is his views or doctrines whatsoever.

We want or I care very seriously that we talk from our very own thinking, even though as appropriated i.e. adopted it from other fellow humans - and to save yourselves from the charge of plagiarism, just mention that you get your thinking from others, and no need to mention their names.

What a fony...what a farce...and how humongous dumb of you...
Speak of context?
WHAT relates without relaters, eh? YOU are a DISGRACE to Philosophy and a walking CLOWN!

...Sad thing with legs...

Lets clean the air around shall we...

Fresco,
If I had the time and the will it would likely take me a decade of study to be able to have a conversation with you. I won't do that but I believe you are learned and sane, so I'll take some of what you say as right. I have you as one I follow because I like to read your responses to those like Susmario, although I fear he and others don't know what the hell you're talking about. I take it your field is language? Language theory? Something like that. I'm glad that our world has men like you, that we have advanced to a point that a man can think and know such things.

Thanks for your replies, dear colleagues.

Now, what do you say about my idea, that we have got to work first to concur on concepts, otherwise we are conducting ourselves irrationally, due to talking past each other's head.

So you guys like Fresco, are so learned that you neglect to do your own thinking, and just drop names instead of exchanging real genuine personally thought out ideas, in re for example what is existence, and also in the present thread what is a particle in quantum mechanics.

Dear Fresco, suppose you tell me what you think - no more bringing in dead people's names, or living people but not here to participate, my thought as follows below:

There are things in the what I call conceptival realm which is all in our mind, and there is the objectival realm which is outside our mind and independent of our mind.

The trouble with you dear Fresco, and guys like you, you talk too much and all the time inside your mind, but neglect to go forth into the objectival realm of things to see how your ideas just inside your mind, jibe with the objective reality in the realm of things which I call the objectival realm, like the nose in our face - of which one poster here waxes so smart with wondering whether the color of the nose exists or not: oh very very problematic with him - I think he will appear here sooner or later.

Anyway, I can see that we are getting to be regular discussants here among ourselves, good for us, so keep posted.

Everyone, get busy with your brain, first: tell me, shouldn't we first work to get to concur on what is existence, instead of conducting ourselves irrationally, each one talking past the head of the other?

Second, this is my concept of existence, see if you can concur with it, or you can propose your own and I will also see whether I can revise mine, so that we will get to agree on a common concept of what is existence.

Quote from Susmariosep:
Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc.

Dear Fresco, you read a lot but I fear you don't do any thinking with your own brain.

Undertake this probe: when you read another one of your idols, in a piece of thinking from him, search all the time whether he has at all ever given his concept of the most crucially important thing he is dealing with.

Understood.

The key to any debate, especially philosophical ones, is to appreciate the nature of the debating tools themselves...i.e. language...in particular as the substrate to 'thought'. And biologically speaking, it is the flexibility of language coupled with the human propensity to predict and control its 'world' that underpin this very activity we call 'debate' ...a specifically human social activity which often occurs internally between different facets of 'self'.

Once you accept that languaging behavior is the starting point for all we call 'thinking' and 'knowledge', then the only way to explore the latter is to explore the functional activities of the former and this cannot be done by assuming the nature of some 'independently existing world' which is 'there to discover'. On the contrary what we call 'knowledge of such a world' is constructed through language....a socially acquired process of setting up behavioral expectancies (whose mental correlate is concepts triggered by words) in the human organism. These expectancies are projected as 'properties of objects' by the humans who externalise their mutual mental projections.

If you can follow this brief summary of this position termed 'the social costruction of reality' then all my references should fall into place. Obviously statements like...

....amount to simplistic twaddle !

I get that what we think is shaped by our language, that language has limits, is not always exactly what we want to convey and can be interpreted differently by individuals.
I think I understand that what we call "objective reality" is just our subjective realities being very similar to each other. And that there's no way to describe this objective reality, because the only tool we have is language, which is internal and subjective.
I don't expect to change Susmario's mind about his world view, I just want him to consider another possibility.

Nice clip with your favorite word in it...'computation'!

However, Chomsky is controversial (a) from the linguistics pov (see for example Lakov or Halliday) and (b) from a biological processes point of view in which 'complexity' can be said to override 'simplicity' from a 'systems' pov (see Prosser). Furthermore the latter author argues that 'the individual' is subservient to 'the group' as far as the meaning of 'life' is concerned which may support the 'social reality' position.

(As an aside...given that Chomsky was originally funded by the US Military to investigate machine language, it is easy to understand both the nature of his theoretical style, and that of his reactionary politics)

Dear Fresco, that is the way with your thinking, no thinking at all but attempt to run away with extreme fear from the task at hand, namely, just produce your concept of what is existence, in whatever language that you think with if at all you think, and you communicate with.

Dear readers here, do you notice all the time that with atheists and one Fresco here, I guess he is also atheist, they suffer from what I call the Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, the consequence of which is continuous unremitting evasiveness from the issue at hand.

In the present point in time here, Oh ye Fresco but not at all fresh, your brain is all in a rancid stale condition,* PRODUCE your own personally thought out concept of what is existence, no matter in what language you think with your brain and communicate with your mouth or in writing with your keyboard.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath, to witness what new instance of Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome Fresco will go into, to hide from the serious task of doing his very own personal thinking, the consequence of his AIDS is continuous unremitting evasiveness from the challenge facing him, namely, PRODUCE your very own personally thought out concept of what is existence, in less than 30 words.

The man can't do it, owning to his AIDS, which is self-conditioned by him on himself, arising from his lifelong slavish dependency on the thinking of other brains, without any critical examination of the thinking of these I call baloney philosophers or weak gruel opinion makers.

*That is an ad hominem, a push nay a shove to stir him awake to do genuine thinking, instead of regurgitating the lousy baloneys of his baloney false idols.

Hehehehe, but dear guys here, I welcome you to address ad hominems to me by which you care to motivate me to think on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.