Wow, If you say more can be known, and that what is not known now says nothing about acquiring future knowledge and abra goes off the handle.

I think you need help bud.

You need to understand the difference between epistemic and ontic, and until you do you will continue to be confused.

From my perspective, you have a very closed mind.

Claiming that ontic happenings (Phenomena at the quantum level) tells us about about all future knowledge IS INSANE.

Claiming that the uncertainty principle tells us that nothing new can every be gleaned from all of quantum mechanics is IDIOTIC in the extreme, and defeatists, and fatalist and really the kind of attitude that is anti-science and even what this topic is all about.

Pretending that these epistemological conclusions are what quantum mechanics (an ontological theory) "says" is categorically WRONG.

Im done trying to school you abra, your a hard headed and ignorant pupil.

You need to take a course on the philosophy of science, and need some real professional mental help to get over this attitude of yours.

That's a total misrepresentation and you know it full well.

I'm not saying that science in general is done.

All I'm saying is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle currently STANDS as a pillar of science

For you to reject that is to reject the current position of science.

If you disagree with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle then FINE!

But in that case all you are truly doing is saying that you believe that science has it WRONG. You believe that QM must FALL.

You don't accept QM.

This is all you are saying bub.



Thank God for that. I don't remember ever employing your services as a mentor in the first place.

I have no interest in being brainwashed back into the mindset of Classical Newtonian Physics.

I'm moving FORWARD, not BACKWARD!

Anyone who calls complentarity equal to or another way to express HUP, and then equates those to superposition is truly unaware of what those things are and who coined those terms.

It's totally irrelavent who coined the terms. They all refer to the same phenomena.

IMHO, if you can't see that, then clearly you don't understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

And what phenomena would that be?

The phenomena that is mathematically described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and has been experimentally verified in every quantum experiment that has ever been done, and is more commonly referred to as complementarity, or superposition.

It's all the same thing.

It's the obeserved fact that all that can ever be observationally known or measured about a single quantum event can never be known ahead of time as anything more than a probability of potentiality.

In order to know anything more than this, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle MUST FALL.

So all you and Jeremy are basically saying is that neither of you accept the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or QM.

You're both holding out for a Newtonian explanation in terms of precise predictable cause and effect relationships.

All you guys are doing is hoping and praying that QM will turn out to be wrong!

You don't accept QM.

But QM is currently the accepted position of science.

So ultimately you don't accept modern science!

You're still holding out that the old Classical Newtonian physics can be revived.

That's precisely where you guys are are at.

You're rejecting modern science and acting like as if you are doing this scientifically.

Complimentarity is the idea that we must describe and think of quanta as both, a particle and a wave.

Superposition is the idea that a particle/wave is in all possible places at once prior to measurement.

HUP says with a mathematical set of equations that we cannot know precisely a particle's position and momentum and how much the uncertainty is affected of either by the preciseness of knowing the other.

Those things are related but not the same.

Your wrong.

There you go speaking in your absolutist terms again.

A rose is a rose by any other name.

You're just a Newtonian hold-out is all.

You'd do everyone a favor, including yourself, by just confessing that you're just holding out for a classical explantion in the hopes that the mathematics of QM will someday be discovered to be false.

You're ultimately holding out the dream that QM will someday fall and probability will no longer rule and it will have been reduced to a classical idea of cause and effect.

There's no question that this is what you are doing. You clearly don't accept that you can't go beyond probabilities in QM.

What I don't understand is why you don't just face what you're doing and approach it from that point of view.

Instead you're trying to argue that QM doesn't say what it says.

In other words, you're trying to argue that you don't believe that you can't get past the probabilities to a cause and effect explanation.

But that's precisely what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states. You can't get past it. Period!

If you ever do get past it then QM will fall.

"The mind that’s afraid to toy with the ridiculous will never create the brilliantly original…"

–David Brin, Brightness Reef



What a great quote right? It makes you think that maybe much of what we discovered was by mere accident occassionally.

Pass the carrots please while I sit here watching this debate

There isn't much of a debate here. Just a couple of Newtonian hold-outs trying to claim that all of modern science is a Newtonian hold-out and that modern science hasn't yet accepted that the best we can do is give a probabilistic description of nature on the quantum level.

Here's the carrots. Those are seseme seeds sprinked on them.



Would you like a Heiniken with that?

Ah the Dutch always thought they can make great beer, but I prefer a German one actually.

Although Amstel light isn't that bad and Amsterdam is a great city to visit


Well whatever it is worth, I hope new ideas from future scientists will evolve discovering new idealogies that can benefit mankind.

I think this is a great quote, I am saying "lets keep an open mind", abra is stating whats done is done: unknowable.

I myself am glad that modern theoretical physicists do not take the same approach as abra.

Abra I am only claiming that we have only ontological explanations, not epistemic, you however do not understand that and interpret it to mean I desire a Newtonian explanation when clearly there is none to be had.

Whatever explanation finally fills the divide in modern physics will be standing on the shoulders of all the previous knowledge we have acquired.

Your arguments and your straw man analysis of my positions are pathetic.


Observations tell you what they tell you, which is what you saw, or observed(ontology), they however do not tell you what they do not tell you(everything you did not see happen). You therefore do not know what it is that you do not know.

So how can you conclude what cannot be known, when all you have is what is known?

The nature of knowledge prohibits such forever statements from being intellectually honest.

THAT is my position, and the position that is shared by professionals in the field. The very fact the math from firsts principles is incomplete is MORE then enough to give a GOOD reason to hold out on final epistemic conclusions.

Creative corners abra by clearly highlighting how each quantum phenomena is distinct NOT the same, and NOT all to do with the uncertainty principle, and what does abra say in response? He uses poison the well fallacy to say that we are Newtonian hold outs to try to make light of our open minded position. Or perhaps its also an adhominum, your a Newtonian hold out and that is why your wrong. Or perhaps its an argument from ignorance as well, you cannot explain it therefore my explanation is correct.

Whatever the specific fallacious logic, its all fallacy.

And abra, you need some schooling bud, what kind of courses did you take?

That is not at all what I am saying.

That's your gross misunderstanding of my position and total misrepresentation of it.

All I'm saying is that IF Quantum Mechanics (the mathematical theory) stands, THEN nothing more can be said about the superposition states between quantum events.

All I am saying is that for your speculations to be true, then Quantum Mechanics must FALL.

Period.

All of your accusations about me are totally false and based on nothing more than your very own misunderstanding and misrepresentations of what I'm actually saying.

All I'm saying if that if it can be 'discovered' or 'shown' that more information can be extracted from quantum events, then QM, as a mathematical construct, must necessasrily FALL.

I'm not saying that it can't fall. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

You are basically holding onto the wet dream that QM will ultimately be shown to be FALSE!

That's the only way that you can ever obtain any more information than what the mathematical construct of QM permits!

In short, you are simply refusing to accept QM.

You are a Newtonian hold-out who is hoping that QM will turn out to be false!

And that's fine! But at least own up to what you're doing!

And now you're trying to make it appear that I'm suggesting that QM can never be shown to be false. I'm not claiming that at all. Although I do confess that I do hold this as a personal belief, just the same that's still not what I'm claiming at all.

All I'm pointing out is the fact that you are ultimately rejecting QM in favor of hoping that it will turn out to be false.

What speculations? Quote me or it didn't happen.



So abra, do you think QM is final? What about that nagging problem with relativity?

So which is wrong? What links them? So is that maybe the reason we (me and creative) advocate an open mind?

Gee, so hard to consider a non straw man argument isn't it? . . .

That we can somehow, someday, be able to give a description of quantum events that is more detailed and more precise in terms of cause and effect than is currently permitted by the probablisitic mathematics of QM.

If that's not what you are suggesting, then we've been in agreement all along and we've been arguing over nothing.

Yes I do believe that QM is final, but that's not an argument, that's just an opinion.

I believe that the nagging problem with Relativity is actually a problem with formal mathematics, and not with physics at all.

Relativity is still being described under the assumption that things can be divided up continuuously forever. But if we truly live in a quantized universe than our mathematics that is based on a continuum is wrong.

So I believe that our mathematics is where the problem ultiamtely lies. Our mathematical formalism is wrong. And I can even suggest ways to fix it. In fact, I can even point directly to the problematic axioms of mathematics.



IMHO, it's neither. It's the axioms of mathematical formalism that's wrong. Fix up the mathematics first and then maybe we can move forward with the physics.

On more then one occasion abra you have said that we will "never" move beyond the QM equations, THAT is what I have been arguing against, its an arbitrary assumption.

If you never really meant to say that, then yes we have been arguing over nothing.

I don't believe that I ever said that.

All I ever said that if you do move beyond them then all you'd be doing is showing that they were false.

To even suggest that you believe that you can move beyond them is to suggest that you believe that QM is ultimately wrong and will someday be discovered to be wrong.

All I'm saying is that it sure looks to me like you simply don't accept QM.

To the best of my knowledge QM has been an accepted pillar of modern science.

So I don't see how you can be rejecting QM and simultaneously be claiming to be representing the view of modern science.

You guys have been accusing me of misrepresenting both QM and science.

I deny the charges!

What I have been saying along is precisely where modern science stands on the issue. At least currently.

Anything else is a wet dream that is not currently supported by what the scientific community has currently accepted.

All I'm saying is that scientifically speaking QM currently holds true as far as we can observationally tell.

And there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe that QM will fall.

All that exists are individual scientists who hold out hope that QM will fall. But they have no scientific reason or evidence to back up their hopes.

Science is an imagination that follows logic .