Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Locked
Biggier
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:45 am

Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Biggier »

From Brian Green's "The Elegant Universe":

"In 1965 Richard Feynman, one of the greatest practitioners of quantum mechanics, wrote:

'There was a time when the newspapers said that only 12 men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there was ever such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in one way or the other....On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.'

"Although Feynman expressed this view more than 3 decades ago, it applies equally well today....Quantum mechanics is different....In a real sense those who use quantum mechanics [today] find themselves following rules and formulas laid down by the 'founding fathers' of the theory....without really understanding WHY the procedures work or WHAT they really mean.

"What are we to make of this? Does it mean that on a microscopic level the universe operates in ways so obscure and unfamiliar that the human mind, evolved over eons to cope with phenomona on familiar everyday scales, is unable to fully grasp 'what really goes on'? Or might it be that through historical accident physicists have constructed an extremely awkward formulation of quantum mechanics that, although quantitatively sucessful, obfustcates the true nature of reality? No one knows. Maybe some time in the future some clever person will see clear to a new formulation that will fully reveal the 'whys' and the 'whats' of quantum mechanics. And then again, maybe not. The only thing we know with certainty is that quamtum mechanics absolutely and unequivocally shows us that a number of basic concepts essential to our understanding of the familiar everyday world FAIL TO HAVE ANY MEANING when our focus narrows down to the microscopic realm. As a result, we must significantly modify both our language and our reasoning when attemting to understand and explain the universe on atomic and subatomic scales."


Now, Green published this book in 1999. That was about 5 years ago. So, maybe the folks in here who vouch for The New Ultimate Reality have since solved all of these baffling conundrums and, in fact, are really speaking about the ULTIMATE Ultimate Reality.

Or maybe not. You see, I'm thinking this guy Green was just on Nova recently illustrating his text. But I noticed he did not mention how indebted he was to David Quinn from the Genius Forum for FINALLY figuring out "why" and "what" all these profound quantum mysteries reveal about THE reality. You know, now that David has solved them.

An oversight, I'm sure. So, I invite Mr Quinn to implicate qunatum mechanics in his UR. I also invite him to contact Mr Green so that, together, they can co-author a new publication. Let's tentatively call it, "The Mother of All Ultimate Realities". All I humbly request is a % of the money they will collect when the Nobel folks award them the prize for every single catagory they have. You know, for coming up with the idea and bringing the two of them together. ; )

Biggie
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Why do you keep quoting these fundamentalists? I might as well hook up with the Pope, or the Hare Krishnas, as hook up with Brian Green. It would be just as meaningful.
Biggier
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:45 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Biggier »

That's, IT, David? THAT'S your rejoinder?!!!

Well, okay, I admit it: it was a lot more sophisticed than I thought it would be. ; )

Biggie
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Naturyl »

Yeah, that was enormously weak. Weak. I think Biggier took home the trophy on this one. When it comes to quantum mechanics, somebody is "a blowed-up peckerwood," to use an expression I heard recently.

David, you really should conisider dumping any reference to quantum mechanics from your materials. It would probably save you a lot of hassle. Trust me on this. Flush the quantum references. They irritate people, especially ones who care about science.
WolfsonJakk
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by WolfsonJakk »

Why is it such a stretch to assume that particles are in fact caused to exist?
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Naturyl »

Because they aren't. Sorry, but they just aren't. If that throws a bag of shit onto your worldview's doorstep, blame quantum mechanics, not the messenger. Blame reality for fiercely resisting every attempt to corner it. It would have been a lot easier and more sensible if virtual particle creation was a causal process. But alas, it isn't, the rest of quantum mechanics doesn't make much more sense to boot, and there's nothing to do but deal with it. Life goes on.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Dave Toast »

Of course they're logically caused to exist, it's a semantic consequence.

And it doesn't mean a thing, it just is a thing.
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr> Because they aren't. Sorry, but they just aren't.<hr>Hmmm, I may be already past the point in Greene's book whre he discusses most of this. I wish I understood better what they mean by 'uncaused.' Because of course they can't really mean that. It just ain't so.
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Naturyl »

That's everyone's reaction to quantum mechanics when they begin to understand its implications. "it can't be," they say as a chorus. "It just ain't so," they assert. But it is so. The fact that it is so when it seems so much like it shouldn't is why even the most distinguished scientists maintain that few, if any, persons who have seriously studied quantum mechanics actually understand it. It runs counter to many of our most cherised ideas about what can and cannot 'be so.' It turns all of that on its head, spins it around backwards, and puts a cherry on top for good measure.
krussell2004
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by krussell2004 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Hmmm, I may be already past the point in Greene's book whre he discusses most of this. I wish I understood better what they mean by 'uncaused.' Because of course they can't really mean that. It just ain't so<hr>

You got that right sugarplumb. As for me....

... I'm as blank, *pause* as a FART! *With a bewildered look on his face he lifts up his right hand and points his index finger to his temple in the form of a pistol*
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr>That's everyone's reaction to quantum mechanics when they begin to understand its implications.<hr> Does anyone know of a good link I can read up on this? Mr. Greene is well into strings and doesn't seem to be straying back to the quantum stuff. As for the Wu Li Masters, he makes absurd assertions without explaining himself. At least Greene does a decent job of explaining.

Of course, I am always willing to entertain anything. But I am 99.999% sure that I will never be persuaded that the particles are uncaused. Thus my question, what do they mean by that?
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Naturyl »

Hmm. You state that you are "99.999% certain" that you will never be persuaded that particles are uncaused. Forgive me, but it sounds very much like you've already made up your mind. If that is the case, what possible use are facts? I fail to see how study could accomplish anything.

If I'm mistaken, let me know. Quantum mechanics is one of my hobbies, and I'd be glad to explain as far as I am able anything which you are having difficulty with. If I can't do it myself, I'll point you to someone who can. But it's a lot of effort, and if your mind is already made up, I'll save myself the trouble.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Dave Toast »

I see nothing to resolve, as it seems to me that you are talking about two different contextual conceptions of the word cause.

When it comes to Laplacean determinism, the proof of sufficient cause becomes that much more contextually complicated (than logical causality, or co-dependent origination) as to allow for such a thing as acausality. Within this context, quantum events are most definitely indeterminate, according to Copenhagen, and can be described only as a probability wave, until the wave function is collapsed via measurement. This makes them acausal in nature, within the definitional context.

Bird, if it is actually temporal, Laplacean causality in which you have yet to find sufficient explanation of quantum acausality, understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (and it's observational certainty), not necessarily with respect to conjugate variables (although this is as good a reason as any), but simply with respect to what quanta are, and what they do energy wise. Another good way to conceptualise it is to understand electrons within the atom not in the classical sense, or even in the sense of the Bohr model, but in the sense of electron probablility clouds.

It's all about the collapse of the wave function at measurement. The transition from probability wave function of eigenstates (possible wave functions) to observed eigenstate is probabilistic. And so we have the probabilistic, non-deterministic, acausal nature of quantum mechanics.

Again though, these models only apply to observables, which is David's get out clause here.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Dave Toast »

A thought occurs.

I've heard it suggested that this 'simulation scenario' of which we've heard so much from the likes of Rhett and David, with regard to certainty concerning sense data, is by far, in actuality, the most likely scenario. The conjecture goes something like this, if memory serves: Everything can be reduced to information and interactions thereof. Computers are advancing in capacity for dealing with information at an exponential rate. Therefore, sooner or later, computers will have the ability to deal with all of the information contained within the universe, or at least to give a good enough approximation so as to pass our standards of 'reality', programming notwithstanding. This provides the means that everything in the universe, life and consciousness included, even higher abstract reasoners, could well be part of a simulation of which they have no idea, facilitated by something that we already know of (and suspect the perhaps unlimited powers of) in this universe. This is obviously a process which could be iterrated within itself, meaning that if there is an original universe which is running any number of simulated universes, said simulated universes could also be running any number of simulated universes also. And apparently, when the odds are worked out by someone bothered to do so, it is highly unlikely in the extreme that this universe is the original.

Now I heard this in connection with possible modes of backwards time travel, in that if it is a simulation, or if we could build one, it would be able to run backwards.

On an unrelated tack though, I was thinking about digital representations in contrast with analog representations. It occured that analog is, or could at least seem to be, transfinitely detailed levels of digital information, digital information so complex as to appear non-digital to those of insufficient understanding and sense powers.

Now on a classical level, things seem to be analog in nature, but when the small details are examined, this view breaks down and information seems to become more digital, or manifests in discrete steps.

So I was thinking, maybe this weirdness of discrete quanta and the Copenhagen interpretation, or maybe things like the Planck units, local/non-local reality and the like, represent the limits of the detail of the digital information involved in this simulation.


Just some wildly unscientific thoughts ;-) Edited by: Dave Toast at: 1/26/04 2:49 am
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Naturyl wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> David, you really should conisider dumping any reference to quantum mechanics from your materials. It would probably save you a lot of hassle. Trust me on this. Flush the quantum references. They irritate people, especially ones who care about science ......

Quantum mechanics is one of my hobbies, and I'd be glad to explain as far as I am able anything which you are having difficulty with. <hr> I'm glad to hear it. Let me ask you this:

(a) What exactly is meant by "non-determinism" in quantum mechanics? Does it mean that particles pop into existnce without any cause whatsoever? Or does it mean that they are indeed causally created, but not by the sorts of processes we are familiar with in the everyday world (and thus makes their behaviour unpredictable and indescribable from the point of view of classical physics)? I have heard a wide variety of answers on this question from scientists and their followers. So what's your answer?

(b) What is the difference between our current quantum models making the assumption that non-determinism is part of the fabric of Reality and nineteenth century physics making the assumption that time and space are fixed absolute realities? In other words, by what means have you established that non-determinism is more than a mere assumption made, for purely practical purposes, in a scientific theory that happens to be popular at the moment?

(c) Are you a fan of the "Tao of Physics?Dancing WuLu Masters" school of thought and believe that the quantum realm, as currently described by science, has some sort of connection to Eastern mysticism?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Dave Toast wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> I see nothing to resolve, as it seems to me that you are talking about two different contextual conceptions of the word cause.

When it comes to Laplacean determinism, the proof of sufficient cause becomes that much more contextually complicated (than logical causality, or co-dependent origination) as to allow for such a thing as acausality. Within this context, quantum events are most definitely indeterminate, according to Copenhagen, and can be described only as a probability wave, until the wave function is collapsed via measurement. This makes them acausal in nature, within the definitional context. <hr> But not in the absolute sense of being completely without cause. If only scientists and their followers could understand this point, I would have no drama with them. And they would have no problems with my assertion that it is impossible for anything to arise completely uncaused.

You're right, Dave. In reality, there is nothing to resolve. It is the inability of scientists (and their followers) to understand their own position on the matter which creates the controversy.

krussell2004
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by krussell2004 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>But not in the absolute sense of being completely without cause. If only scientists and their followers could understand this point, I would have no drama with them. And they would have no problems with my assertion that it is impossible for anything to arise completely uncaused. <hr>

I find it most astounding that scientists of all people would think that particles or matter of any kind would exist or occur without cause. In this respect they sound more like theologians who assert that God always existed even before he decided to create the world which would mean He spent an eternity in a complete state of idleness before he suddenly decided to create the universe. This leads to the following truth which you so plainly and simply state.

Quote:Quote:<hr>You're right, Dave. In reality, there is nothing to resolve. It is the inability of scientists (and their followers) to understand their own position on the matter which creates the controversy.<hr>
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Dave Toast »

Let's not forget that scientists aren't science itself, and, like the police, there are always the odd few good apples that sweeten the bad barrel. Greedy reductionism is the scientist's achilles heel, but science itself is as dispassionate, open, and perhaps more puposeful than the infinite. Unlike the human, science is not greedy, it does not force the pace as it has all the time in the world, it is as open to falsification as it is open to proof, and it knows it's place.
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by birdofhermes »

Naturyl:
Hmm. You state that you are "99.999% certain" that you will never be persuaded that particles are uncaused. Forgive me, but it sounds very much like you've already made up your mind. If that is the case, what possible use are facts?

Forgive me, I was being bombastic. The facts are fine, but I will make of them what I will.

But it's a lot of effort, and if your mind is already made up, I'll save myself the trouble.

Don't fret, I'm one of the few with a truly open mind. I can't help that my prediction is I will not be convinceable about uncaused particles. I could definitely use some help. If I can get a better handle on this stuff I can begin to figure out what the errors of interpretation are [ :-) ].

Toast:
When it comes to Laplacean determinism, the proof of sufficient cause becomes that much more contextually complicated (than logical causality, or co-dependent origination) as to allow for such a thing as acausality. Within this context, quantum events are most definitely indeterminate, according to Copenhagen, and can be described only as a probability wave, until the wave function is collapsed via measurement. This makes them acausal in nature, within the definitional context.

Toast, you show-off, you need to translate all this into English. What do you mean "contextually" complicated? I don't know why people keep mentioning that the complexity is too great for us ever to accurately predict. We are not concerned with our abilities, but with whether the clockwork universe is so.

Bird, if it is actually temporal, Laplacean causality in which you have yet to find sufficient explanation of quantum acausality, understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (and it's observational certainty), not necessarily with respect to conjugate variables (although this is as good a reason as any), but simply with respect to what quanta are, and what they do energy wise. Another good way to conceptualise it is to understand electrons within the atom not in the classical sense, or even in the sense of the Bohr model, but in the sense of electron probablility clouds.

Whole paragraph is over my head.

It's all about the collapse of the wave function at measurement. The transition from probability wave function of eigenstates (possible wave functions) to observed eigenstate is probabilistic. And so we have the probabilistic, non-deterministic, acausal nature of quantum mechanics. Again though, these models only apply to observables, which is David's get out clause here.

What has any of this to do with particles being uncaused?

You seem to be hinting, and Russell as well, that, as I suspected, they do not mean that particles are uncaused at all.

What I am saying is that nothingness does not give rise to particles.


Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Naturyl »

Quote:a) What exactly is meant by "non-determinism" in quantum mechanics? Does it mean that particles pop into existnce without any cause whatsoever? Or does it mean that they are indeed causally created, but not by the sorts of processes we are familiar with in the everyday world (and thus makes their behaviour unpredictable and indescribable from the point of view of classical physics)? I have heard a wide variety of answers on this question from scientists and their followers. So what's your answer?The former.

Quote:(b) What is the difference between our current quantum models making the assumption that non-determinism is part of the fabric of Reality and nineteenth century physics making the assumption that time and space are fixed absolute realities? In other words, by what means have you established that non-determinism is more than a mere assumption made, for purely practical purposes, in a scientific theory that happens to be popular at the moment?Particle/antiparticle creation through random quantum fluctuation has been empirically verified through a variety of means. As I am sure you are aware by virtue of dealing with this issue countless times, it is not possible that such 'virtual particle' creation arises through causal processes. We do observe such creation in Nature, so we have empirical verification that quantum mechanics does allow for phenomena that are devoid of cause. This has been established, and does not require any underlying metaphysical assumption in order to remain valid.
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Naturyl »

Oops, I missed this one:

Quote:Quote:<hr>(c) Are you a fan of the "Tao of Physics?Dancing WuLu Masters" school of thought and believe that the quantum realm, as currently described by science, has some sort of connection to Eastern mysticism?<hr>Not really. Most such efforts require the introduction of significant semantic gymnastics in order to appear meaningful.

I do feel that there are some interesting similarities between certain aspects of quantum mechanics and some varieties of Eastern thought, but I am careful not to strech that analogical it beyond its limits.

I have some interest in such work, but I would not consider myself a 'fan' thereof.

A possible exception might be made in the case of a certain book by one William Walker Atkinson (AKA 'Yogi Ramacharaka'), in which the author quite plainly predicts both general relativity and quantum mechanics, and arguably predicts even the information theory aspects thereof. Atkinson wrote the book in question in 1904. Quite remarkable, to say the least. If there is sufficient interest, I can transcribe quotes which will likely set some folks back on their heels.
Thomas Knierim
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Thomas Knierim »

<span style="color:white;">Krussel: I find it most astounding that scientists of all people would think that particles or matter of any kind would exist or occur without cause.</span>

Well, QM is admittedly counterintuitive. Every scientist would agree with that. There is no way to understand QM intuitively and say “ah yes, that’s the way it works.” This makes it different from most classical theories. QM is an “acquired taste”. It requires mathematical models and, therefore, it requires a basic understanding of math. Some popular science books claim otherwise, they say: no math required, but hey... I don’t think so. The authors of such claims just want to sell their books. The situation is analogous to looking at an abstract painting, let’s say at Picasso’s “Violin and Guitar”, and trying to make sense of it. In order to make sense of it you need to understand cubism. If (and only if) you understand cubism then you understand Picasso’s “Violin and Guitar”.

QM is not the only example of high abstraction in physics. Even relativity -a classical theory- is to some degree counterintuitive. Think of things in motion and imagine that from your perspective the clock ticks slower for things in motion. It appears from you frame of reference that their time slows down. Let that thought melt in your brain and enjoy the flavor.

Nature is wondrous.

In my view QM DOES QUESTION causality. At the very least, it questions the commonsense understanding of causality, just as relativity questions the commonsense understanding of time and space. Our everyday notion of causality is too narrow. It cannot accommodate QM, just as the receptacle idea of space cannot accommodate relativity. Human thought often follows entrenched pathways. We are used to linear, simple causality. A follows B therefore B is A’s cause. If we observe a non-deterministic phenomenon such as radioactive decay, we automatically ask: what caused the particle to decay? Narrow thinking insinuates hidden causes. That is all too human. But, perhaps the question is not valid. Maybe all we have to do is to redefine causality. Unfortunately though, this entire discussion here on Genius has rarely ventured into that alley. It has never been analyzed what are the precise modes of causality. What is locality, continuity, non-spuriousness, transitional necessity, etc. Instead of asking these important questions, it is has just been dogmatically assumed that the principle of causality is unquestionable.

This is a big mistake. We need to question everything!

Thomas
Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 1/26/04 5:20 pm
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Naturyl wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: What is the difference between our current quantum models making the assumption that non-determinism is part of the fabric of Reality and nineteenth century physics making the assumption that time and space are fixed absolute realities? In other words, by what means have you established that non-determinism is more than a mere assumption made, for purely practical purposes, in a scientific theory that happens to be popular at the moment?

Nat: Particle/antiparticle creation through random quantum fluctuation has been empirically verified through a variety of means. As I am sure you are aware by virtue of dealing with this issue countless times, it is not possible that such 'virtual particle' creation arises through causal processes. We do observe such creation in Nature, so we have empirical verification that quantum mechanics does allow for phenomena that are devoid of cause. This has been established, and does not require any underlying metaphysical assumption in order to remain valid. <hr> You haven't really said anything here. All you have done is repeat the standard dogma.

The ancients used to point all around them in a sweeping gesture and assert that the flatness of the earth has been "empirically verified". They also used to point to the motion of the stars above and assert that the earth's fixed postion in the centre of the universe has been "empirically verified". Nineteenth century physicists used to point to the consistent behaviour observed in moving objects and planetry orbits and the like, and assert that the fixed and absolute nature of time and space has been "empirically verified". In light of all this, I would like to know how you have established that quantum physics, and its belief that non-causality has been "empirically verified", is any different?


Quote:Quote:<hr> A possible exception might be made in the case of a certain book by one William Walker Atkinson (AKA 'Yogi Ramacharaka'), in which the author quite plainly predicts both general relativity and quantum mechanics, and arguably predicts even the information theory aspects thereof. Atkinson wrote the book in question in 1904. Quite remarkable, to say the least. If there is sufficient interest, I can transcribe quotes which will likely set some folks back on their heels. <hr> What is the wisest thing he ever wrote?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Thomas wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> Our everyday notion of causality is too narrow. It cannot accommodate QM, just as the receptacle idea of space cannot accommodate relativity. <hr> No, your everyday conception of causality is too narrow. That is why you a continually creating a conflict (between QM and causality) which doesn't really exist.


Quote:Quote:<hr> If we observe a non-deterministic phenomenon such as radioactive decay, we automatically ask: what caused the particle to decay? Narrow thinking insinuates hidden causes. That is all too human. <hr> We already know that radiocative decay has causes - for example, the radiocative material in question, time and space, atoms, nuclei, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. These are all contributory causes of radioactive decay.


Quote:Quote:<hr> But, perhaps the question is not valid. Maybe all we have to do is to redefine causality. <hr> Hooray!


Quote:Quote:<hr> Unfortunately though, this entire discussion here on Genius has rarely ventured into that alley. It has never been analyzed what are the precise modes of causality. What is locality, continuity, non-spuriousness, transitional necessity, etc. Instead of asking these important questions, it is has just been dogmatically assumed that the principle of causality is unquestionable. <hr> There is a very good reason why these "important questions" have rarely been investigated on this forum - namely, they're not very important. They don't help a person understand the soul of causality, which is where you are lacking, Thomas.
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Naturyl »

Quote:Quote:<hr>You haven't really said anything here. All you have done is repeat the standard dogma.<hr>Yeah, the 'standard dogma' that shows your argument to be fallacious. I'll give you a clue. No one is ever going to 'say anything' as long as you shut your eyes and plug your ears whenever someone starts to refute you. In your world, where eyes are shut and ears are plugged, it's only natural that no one says anything. To someone in a coma, a lecture by Einstein would amount to nothing at all. That which you refer to as 'the standard dogma' is that which undermines your claims, so you respond by equating it with nothingness. Neat trick. Those who refute your arguments 'haven't really said anything.' That which contradicts you does not exist. Like I said elsewhere, it's a nice racket you've got going there.

Quote:Quote:<hr>What is the wisest thing he ever wrote?<hr>Honestly, I wouldn't know where to start. IMO, his Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism is quite possibly the greatest exposition of authentic spiritual thought ever written for the layman.

One thing is certain, however. He never said that it would be a good idea to strangle female infants at birth.
Locked