We are all half banana!

[Formaldehyde]

Okay, that's too hilarious! When I said that I normally use the Hermann truism when I feel like being snotty, who do you think it would be that I feel like being snotty to?

I think it is quite obvious given your posts:

You are so wrapped up in defending science like it is some sort of creed that you take something designed to irritate creationists as an argument a creationist would USE. THAT is actually beyond hilarious and into downright clownery. Yes, I made that word up as existing words are inadequate.

At least you no longer making comments such as this:

Science requires the belief that even though it contradicts itself it is still useful.

Or are you?

So, let's get back to the simultaneous proof/disproof of Bell's theory and the current state of science. Do you favor the sun may not rise in the east tomorrow, as experiments have now verified that a reproducible experimental outcome is not a reliable predictor of future outcomes of the same experiment? Or do you favor that the sun will continue to meet experimentally derived expectations by rising in the east yet again, but has no objective reality so in the absence of some undefinable "conscious observer" existing outside of reality (and absolutely smacking of Hermann...errrrr...god....er, maybe Odin) it isn't even there?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Or are you?

Let me know if you figure that out.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I don't see what you're getting at, Timsalways2gether

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't see what you're getting at, Timsalways2gether

Science requires the belief that even though it contradicts itself it is still useful. I believe that, of course, but I acknowledge that if you look for strict scientific proof you do end up jammed up on the contradiction.

This post, that Formy takes such an "offended scientist" stance to because to him it smacks of religion, is a basic scientific truth. Most scientists, and almost all science faithful, reject it out of hand because they stay well clear of the edges of science and shut their eyes.

What I mean by "staying away from the edges" is illustrated by the use of "fossil evidence." The fossil, for the paleontologist, rests on a bed of information that they accept just as thoroughly as the Christian accepts the bible. How the fossil came into existence is the realm of the geologist. The expired life form it represents, if alive, would be the realm of the biologist.

Were the paleontologist truly "scientific" about things they would, perforce, become gigantically multi-disciplinary, which is of course possible. They would process as a geologist to avoid putting faith in their result, and the biologist as well. But in this pursuit of science our previously a paleontologist who refuses to acknowledge that at some point their fossil requires a "leap of faith" and thus becomes a multi-disciplined balloon of knowledge will reach physics.

And when they reach physics their efforts to avoid that "leap of faith" and process as a physicist will lead them to Mr Bell. And Mr Bell will teach them that the leap of faith is inescapable and they may as well have just made it back when they were a paleontologist and called it good.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I don't really know.
One thing is that I am unfamiliar with Bell's theory.
Also, I wouldn't equate the "leaps of fate" necessary in science with believing in like Odin.

 

[Gary Childress]

This post, that Formy takes such an "offended scientist" stance to because to him it smacks of religion, is a basic scientific truth. Most scientists, and almost all science faithful, reject it out of hand because they stay well clear of the edges of science and shut their eyes.

What I mean by "staying away from the edges" is illustrated by the use of "fossil evidence." The fossil, for the paleontologist, rests on a bed of information that they accept just as thoroughly as the Christian accepts the bible. How the fossil came into existence is the realm of the geologist. The expired life form it represents, if alive, would be the realm of the biologist.

Were the paleontologist truly "scientific" about things they would, perforce, become gigantically multi-disciplinary, which is of course possible. They would process as a geologist to avoid putting faith in their result, and the biologist as well. But in this pursuit of science our previously a paleontologist who refuses to acknowledge that at some point their fossil requires a "leap of faith" and thus becomes a multi-disciplined balloon of knowledge will reach physics.

And when they reach physics their efforts to avoid that "leap of faith" and process as a physicist will lead them to Mr Bell. And Mr Bell will teach them that the leap of faith is inescapable and they may as well have just made it back when they were a paleontologist and called it good.

I was reading a little just now about Bell's Theorem on Wiki and soon became confused and cross eyed. According to Wiki, Bell's theorem is essentially:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

So I Googled "local hidden variables" but am still not sure what the term means. Does "local hidden variable" mean some sort of particle or mechanism that is as yet unknown?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't really know.
One thing is that I am unfamiliar with Bell's theory.
Also, I wouldn't equate the "leaps of fate" necessary in science with believing in like Odin.

Get familiar with Bell's theory. Odin is as good a solution as any, though as I said before Hermann is my go to guy.

But, for the sake of localized argument:

Let's work with the biologist. He talks to his buddy, the chemist, who has done plenty of experiments with chlorophyll molecules in his lab and can explain how they work. Now, our biologist is willing to accept that these laboratory experiments are representative of how a chlorophyll molecule works inside a leaf. Not only inside a leaf, but inside all of the leaves. This is reasonable, because taking the chlorophyll into a controlled environment where it is easier to observe does not change the chlorophyll as far as the experiments conducted are concerned.

We accept that assumption all the time. But our chemist friend is using experiments to verify ideas about chemical reactions which are based on the physical nature of the atoms and molecules under examination. So in accepting that the behavior of the chlorophyll is not affected by being placed in an easier to observe environment we should be accepting a similar assumption with regard to the physical nature of the atoms and molecules that make up the chlorophyll.

But the physicist who explains the physical nature of those atoms and molecules and came up with the explanation of the physical properties our chemist has verified by experimentation has himself verified by experimentation that this assumption is not true, at least in regards to atoms and molecules. The physical nature of atoms and molecules is absolutely dependent upon how they are observed. Given that leaves are apparently constructed of atoms and molecules there is a real problem associated with assuming things about them that do not apply to atoms and molecules.

So our biologist's understanding of what the chlorophyll in the leaf is doing is based on an assumption about the nature of experimentation that has been proven false. But our biologist's understanding of what the chlorophyll does in the leaf is still extremely useful. At the very least modern agricultural technology depends on it and without it we would all be pretty hungry. And thus we arrive at the statement I presented: science requires the belief that it is useful, even though it contradicts itself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was reading a little just now about Bell's Theorem on Wiki and soon became confused and cross eyed. According to Wiki, Bell's theorem is essentially:



So I Googled "local hidden variables" but am still not sure what the term means. Does "local hidden variable" mean some sort of particle or mechanism that is as yet unknown?

Yeah, it tends to have that effect.

"Local hidden variables" are a hypothetical mechanism for avoiding faster than light transmission of information. They are a means to avoiding a flaw in "objective reality."

Take a particle. We assign various properties to particles. It has a location. It has a momentum (possibly zero). It is spinning in some fashion (possibly including not). It has a charge (which may be zero). We devise experiments to measure these properties. However, there is no process of measurement that does not affect the particle. If we measure its location, and then measure its momentum, we do not know if the result of our measurement of momentum is the same as it would have been had we not measured the location first, because our measuring of location has affected the particle. So in assigning all these properties to particles, we in affect are acknowledging that we can really only measure one of them, which calls into question whether the properties we are not measuring objectively exist, or if they are just potentially existing until they are actually measured.

So, we conduct experiments, and we find that unless we measure these properties they in fact do not exist. Our "particle" exhibits ALL of the possible values for the properties expressed as probabilities, until we actually measure it and "collapse" all the probabilities into a "reality"...at which point the particle begins exhibiting all the possible values for other properties expressed as probabilities...and we are still stuck with the fact that when we measure one property it affects the others so our particle can have, at most, ONE "experimentally real" property at a time.

BUT...the properties themselves ARE real, even when we aren't measuring them...right? There is an objective reality to things...right??? Please?

So, an experiment is called for. The subject of the experiment is pairs of particles. There are processes that create particles that are in fact identical in at least one characteristic. If we measure ONE of the particles we then KNOW that the other particle will have that value for that property and we have not done any disturbing measurement of it.

So, now we can predict how this particle will act, and there are experiments that have demonstrated that these predictions are valid. But until we measured one, both particles behaved as if they had all possible values expressed as probabilities. We measured ONE so it "collapsed" to a single reality, but what actually changed the behavior of the other particle?

One explanation is that some sort of "entanglement" between the two particles exists such that despite the distance between them what happens to one will affect the other. Unfortunately, for this to work (based on experiments that examine both particles simultaneously) this "entanglement" somehow conveys information between the particles instantaneously regardless of distance (uh oh, faster than the speed of light ).

In order to protect the speed of light, we introduce the "hidden variable". There is some unobserved characteristic in the pair of particles that controls how each of them will react. Since it is the same in both they react the same, without entanglement. We call this "plan." Particles that interact with each other, even if that interaction is not their simultaneous creation, affect each other. When we measure this one, it tells us something about the other one. For this "plan" to work as a way to avoid "entanglement" with the attendant failure of the speed of light being inviolate there has to be, in EVERY particle, an aspect of plan to cover every eventuality of every interaction it has ever had with ANY particle. All of this plan must be contained in local hidden variables in the particle.

Bell basically demonstrated that there is a limit on how much plan there can be, and it is insufficient to account for experimentally verified entanglement.

If you are cross eyed at this point, I apparently did not do any better than Wiki. If you are a physicist and you are furious about my gross oversimplifications, feel free to clarify.

 

[bhavv]

What does geology have to do with it? It's paleontologists who study fossils.

Evolution crosses over between biology, earth science, chemistry , and probably many other fields of study too.

At the university I went to, I found out from a friend who was studying such modules that a Biology major and Earth Science minor at that uni was the best way to go for focusing on evolution. There were 3 separate modules dedicated to the study of evolution, plain human evolution in human biology, an environmental module relating to plant and bacterial evolution, and an earth science module relating to the fossil and earth evidence of evolution. She did those 3 and the remaining 3 modules in human biology.

Like I say, I had no idea about any of this level of specialization, I was just like 'I like these subjects so I will do them'. Otherwise if I had gone to study a few years later with more knowleedge on how huge evolution was, I'd have done a similar Biology / Earth Science combination instead of minoring in music.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I cant say I understand but I believe in science. I have faith in it but I also have faith in non-physical. They dont contradict each other they are obverse and reverse of the same reality. The problem is when we try to limit reality with our groping minds.
The truth seems to be we can go beyond limits of mental perception while staying in a realm of reality and still carry science with us.
Reality seems to be more then just mental perception of physical reality but for many its the most important. Take animals. They dont need this perception itsnt practical for them. Just becouse for humans it has practical value it doesnt mean it can be used to describe the total of reality.
Lets say there is a more complete form of perception then regular mental activity needed for physical science. How do you suppose physical science to be the judge?

 

[bhavv]

'believe in science'

'faith in science'

No comments because they would get me in trouble.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

'believe in science'

'faith in science'

No comments because they would get me in trouble.

No problem. I mean it. Faith is a core necessity for any human being and is central to our life. People who lost their hope their life can be fulfiling commit suicide.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Quantum mechanics is well known as being the exception in science because it is based on a probabilistic model instead of one which is deterministic.

Or as Einstein said about it: God does not play dice. But as Martin Archer points out it does appear that he does play dice - at least in this instance based on what is now known:


Link to video.

But trying to claim it is a general failing of science is just so much utter nonsense. It is just another theory which may hold up based on further developments. Or it may not.

Again, no biggie. That's just how science works. This particular model happens to work better than all the rest at the present time, so at least for now it is the one which is generally accepted.

 

[Gary Childress]

No problem. I mean it. Faith is a core necessity for any human being and is central to our life. People who lost their hope their life can be fulfiling commit suicide.

Not always, As a lonely old bachelor with mental health issues I have lost most hope that my life can be fulfilling but am still too terrified of death to end it. So I just sort of exist like a fungus exists, it's the only thing I know how to do is just exist. I would think in order for someone to become suicidal there needs to be a more "positive" component such as mental anguish and not just a "loss of hope" in having a fulfilling life.

EDIT: Either that or maybe I am fulfilled and don't realize it?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Quantum mechanics is well known as being the exception in science because it is based on a probabilistic model instead of one which is deterministic.

Or as Einstein said about it: God does not play dice. But as Martin Archer points out it does appear that he does play dice - at least in this instance based on what is now known:



But trying to claim it is a general failing of science is just so much utter nonsense. It is just another theory which may hold up based on further developments. Or it may not.

Again, no biggie. That's just how science works. This particular model happens to work better than all the rest at the present time, so at least for now it is the one which is generally accepted.

Who called it a failing?

How does quantum mechanics get to be a "well known exception"? I suggest that what 99%+ of humanity collectively knows about quantum mechanics could be engraved on the head of a single pin and there would still be room for the star spangled banner.

There is no experimental evidence that there are any exceptions. The same wave/particle duality that had to be just inexplicably accepted to deal with light has expanded to include experiments with particle streams up to and including atoms, with no indication that the size of the particle makes any difference whatsoever or that at some size the entire operation will suddenly turn "deterministic". Ultimately the only thing that keeps planets from behaving like quarks seems to be the ease with which they can be observed.

While I find your faith that "it will all work out" inspiring in a way, it does not seem particularly scientific. Neither does the quipping off of an Einstein quote and the accompanying retort without acknowledging the contradiction they represent, or the tremendous amount of experimental evidence that indicates that both are indeed "the truth".

What is "now known" is that we have developed an incredibly intricate representation of "reality" while coming no closer to having any sort of grip on exactly what that is than we had to start with. It is as self referential as the logical truism of Hermann, just in a much bigger and thus easier to ignore loop. It's useful, but as an object of faith it is disappointing.

EDIT: I felt bad about not watching the video you brought to the table. So I watched it. Now I feel worse. You really rest your faith on a thirty second "pop science" video? Dude, go rub some rosary beads or something.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Not always, As a lonely old bachelor with mental health issues I have lost most hope that my life can be fulfilling but am still too terrified of death to end it. So I just sort of exist like a fungus exists, it's the only thing I know how to do is just exist. I would think in order for someone to become suicidal there needs to be a more "positive" component such as mental anguish and not just a "loss of hope" in having a fulfilling life.

EDIT: Either that or maybe I am fulfilled and don't realize it?

Sure. But the main point is that if you can increase your faith (in anyway, not necessarily religious one) your life is bound to change. Becouse our potential is unlimited. Faith is only a bridge to this yet unrevealed potential.

 

[bhavv]

No problem. I mean it. Faith is a core necessity for any human being and is central to our life. People who lost their hope their life can be fulfiling commit suicide.

Faith does not correlate to hope, and neither those terms correlate to suicide.

I find such a statement to be incredibly offensive.

 

[Borachio]

Doesn't faith correlate pretty strongly with trust?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Doesn't faith correlate pretty strongly with trust?

I would have said confidence.

 

[bhavv]

Doesn't faith correlate pretty strongly with trust?

In a different definition of faith.