is there any need to be angry?
Not at all. Not in the least. I think it discredits materialism, which is a big deal.
---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 09:17 PM ----------
QM has also undermined the idea that reality exists independent of an observer. But this only vindicates Schopenhauer and Kant, and as we are philosophers, that really ought not come as a surprise.
(The forum software irretrievably deleted several paragraphs of text, and I'm not going to type all that lot in again, so I will have to be brief.)
QM has shown us that not only is the universe not just a bunch of atoms bouncing into one another like billiard balls, but it isn't even a bunch of little things even smaller than atoms bouncing around like billiard balls.
Indeed, if QM even allows us to go on thinking of the universe as made up of things and stuff at all, independently of any observing consciousness, then that fact has not yet filtered down to the level of us hoi polloi.
So, in the light (waves or particles?) of QM, how are we to think of the relationship between consciousness and the physical world?
It is all very well to decry "extrapolations from physics", but that rather assumes that we already have an adequate philosophy, possibly one already extrapolated from physics, or possibly one arrived at in some other way.
Apart from jeeprs, no-one in this thread seems to want to admit that QM poses a problem for philosophy.
Perhaps that reluctance derives from genuine modesty, a belief that it is hard to know what the problem is unless one knows the mathematical theories and experimental results of QM? But the shouts of "idiot" and "stick with creationism, wizards and voodoo-dolls and leave science to us" suggest that modesty is not the problem here.
Also, conflating my attempt to dissuade willy nilly extrapolations from a system that (perfect or not, correct or not) is not fully understood by the one making such extrapolations with some presumption of philosophical absolution on my part is absurd. No one on here is well enough educated in physics to really bring a coherent opinion to the table. It is all undergirded by light reading and general interest. What is required is real dedication to scholarship. This is subject matter that is too dense to discuss generally without an immense amount of background knowledge. Hence all of the threads pertaining to this sort of subject are tantamount to cursory idea-fumbling. Too little is said and too much is written. Most of the people discussing bring in some strange idea resulting from a misunderstanding due to the slipshod manner in which they approach this very precise subject matter.
Rutherford was responsible for the colloquial visualization of the atom. Rutherford model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To the OP, I agree that it's pretty ignorant to say that it doesn't matter. That is simply a false statement. All of science eventually finds itself in the center of public attention in the form of technology. Whether it's a new weapon that threatens your security (or ensures it) or a new toy/gadget. The origin of mass may not interest them, and probably for the better as it seems as though it would be quite difficult to understand the vibrant mathematical interaction of physical objects without the proper training and/or personal dedication to gaining such knowledge.
I would say that the difficulty of physics can be explained in easier terms using analogies. The difficulty of the matter should not be a wall to everyone understanding the implications of the grounds gained in physics/cosmology etc.
I would also ask you this, since you do seem to think this knowledge has special pertinance: When was the last time you studied foreign affairs and quickly done an in depth analysis to come to a highly informed opinion utilizing the intuition you have gained from the vast knowledge you have of history and politics/political science?
Can you say that you diligently pursue every area that is worth caring about, or only those that personally interest you? Have you placed your areas of interest on a pedestal, and forgotten that there are other important issues?
The origins of the universe cannot be classed as anything but of the utmost importance, regardless if it is an interest to me or not. I have an interest in a lot of other things, like video games, history, collecting original Transformers etc, but, I would not consider any of these things important to the human race as I would the origins of the universe.
Are you as well versed in the theories and facts of international politics and the ethical implications thereof as you are in physical theory and fact? If not, why?
Because compared to the origins of the universe, these matters pale into insignificance. It would be like comparing E=Mc2 with Brittney Spears.
If so, we could move on to the next area of intellectual pursuit that affects us in one way or another.
Or maybe you are complaining about these certain persons not showing at least token interest in anything academic or even anything generally intellectual no matte how pertinent it is to them. That is some sort of mind-state that I have trouble identifying with, but I can roughly understand it. I would assume it has some sort of familial/social basis. Parents didn't read to them as kids or something, I suppose. To find more intellectual things interesting, it seems like you have to break a sort of mental barrier that would allow you to be more self-critical. Insofar as you are self critical, you would naturally be critical of others; wanting to hold them up to the same ideals that you hold yourself. Hence, frustration with those who still possess this mental barrier.
No, it has nothing to do with me but more to do with the mere fact that anyone would not want to know where everything comes from. I can't get my head around it. I still consider them stupid.
I am tempted to associate the barrier with automatic thinking, quick social judgments and confirmation seeking behaviors. A person like this, it seems, would be easily persuaded when removed from group support.
Perhaps the tendency to be self critical stems from some fundamental point of opposition that sets the self critical person apart from some majority of persons. It has often been said that the more intellectual personalities are alienated; is this by virtue of their facility with learning and reason or by a tendency towards learning and practicing reason, a habit given impetus by some more fundamental aspect of the person? Perhaps a bit of both.
I've found that many intellectual persons I've met give the impression of attempting to justify some aspect of themselves with external means, thereby raising that aspect of themselves outside of the realm of subjective criticism. I must admit that even in the case of myself, I give experimental support to this (and hence am biased towards it).
Although I disagree, my interest is piqued in your analysis.
Huh? If I split a clown in half, it also ceases to be a live clown. WTF are you talking about? How is this philosophy? What are you talking about? WTF?
Please calm down.
I don't think that jeeprs (or anyone else in the thread) is siding with those idiots, as you rightly describe them, who see no point in doing experiments in high-energy physics.
In answer to your question: you're not crazy - so try not to act like you are!
There are no atoms. Some bloke called Rutherford proved that in (I think) 1927.
Remember, 'atom' means 'indivisible'. We now have a 'particle zoo', which is not 'an atom'. Furthermore until the last piece turns up, we really don't have a complete zoo.
And you may think God doesn't exist, but I can say the same things about atoms, so there!
But jeeprs, you see what happens when you use a word in a way that doesn't match the common usage definition? A page of arguing, insinuations of UFO belief
Are we seriously going to start playing this game again? Sure I have never seen an atom, not a single one. I don't even personally know anyone who has seen one. However; their existence can be tested, but perhaps you are not aware of this fact.
Apart from jeeprs, no-one in this thread seems to want to admit that QM poses a problem for philosophy.
those idiots, as you rightly describe them, who see no point in doing experiments in high-energy physics.
Surely, almost everyone understands that QM raises philosophical problems. If you doubt this, then look here: Table of Contents or here: PhilSci Archive - Subject: Physics
The philosophy of physics is still by far the most productive, in terms of original articles, of any field in the philosophy of science, and QM is the most productive field within the philosophy of physics.
So, what, of any interest, are you trying to say?
---------- Post added 06-09-2010 at 01:20 AM ----------
Okay, demonstrate that the physicists, who hold the position that these experiments are a waste of money and dont demonstrate anything significant, are idiots.
I really don't have the patience of a saint. I put some thought and effort into my posts here, but I get very little back.
jeeprs (or anyone), what is the Zen way to respond to this? I'm serious. I'm completely at a loss. It is clear that anything I might say in response will be wilfully misconstrued. I have discarded several possible replies, all of which promise only to lead further into a wilderness of bickering sidetracks, all heat and noise, and no light.
I don't want to add ughaibu to my Ignore List, because he has at least posted useful references in the past, e.g. to that paper about nominalisation of QM. However, any attempt at actual discussion with him, as with several other members of this forum, has always proved fruitless.
I feel (for the umpteenth time) that I am wasting my time on this forum. It just seems to take time and energy away that would be far better spent on reading and silent thinking, more or less what I was always accustomed to doing before.
I really don't have the patience of a saint. I put some thought and effort into my posts here, but I get very little back. My merely human patience is fast running out.
Is this a complaint that we wont just accept your statements as if we are suppose to submit to your intellect?
I find it funny when a person want's to put someone on ignore because they disagree with their statements.
You're not doing yourself, or the forum, any favour with this response.
Don't be silly.