Quantum Mechanics, Cause and Effect

[Coriolis]

Throw away your Webster's American Dictionary and open your Oxford English Dictionary (OED). And so put an end to your deracination by the American revolutionary lexicographer, Noah Webster, and join once again the family of the Queen's English.

Actually, I am more likely to use a translating dictionary.

(But you are still off topic. You are welcome to start a thread on dictionaries, or varieties of English.)

 

[grey_beard]

Quantum Mechanics gives us our most accurate facts.

And perhaps the most interesting fact is that there is no cause.

Of course we have the illusion of cause but quantum mechanics makes it crystal clear there is no cause.

And so there is no need for a First Cause.

And most things we take for granted are illusions, such as astrology and mbti, and the ability of pilots to fly by the seat of their pants in cloud or at night - yes, all illusions.

But what is amazing is that our minds take so long to catch up with reality, that we live by illusions.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman
(Experiment is not an illusion. And by extension, "ordinary life" is not an illusion either, else there would be no need to isolate individual factors/elements to change while holding others constant and eliminating possible interferences, when designing and performing a well-formed experiment. Nor yet again would there be any use in communicating the results of experiments, and theory, in journals; nor yet again in any rational thought; among which your post purports to be.)

 

[Mole]

"ordinary life" is not an illusion either

Ordinary life is an illusion when we project it onto the very big with Relativity; and ordinary life is an illusion when we project it onto the very small with Quantum Mechanics.

For instance, it is an illusion that the Sun goes round the Earth. This has been an illusion for 200,000 years because we projected our very limited perceptions onto the solar system.

And it is exactly the same with the very big with Relativity and the very small with Quantum Mechanics, we project our limited and special case perceptions onto and into the universe.

We are all Alice through the looking glass of the microscope and the telescope - topsy turvy.

When I find I am illusioned, I change my mind. What do you do?

 

[Mole]

But you are still off topic.

I am told I am off topic when I take the topic to an abstract level and you are unable to follow me and so naturally think I am off topic.

Naturally you believe the topic of this thread is Quantum Mechanics when at the abstract level Quantum Mechanics is merely an example. At the abstract level this thread is about changing our mind in face of conflicting evidence.

Our intellectual problem here is a kind of blank literal mindedness that is unable to see the distinction between the example and the abstract.

 

[grey_beard]

Ordinary life is an illusion when we project it onto the very big with Relativity; and ordinary life is an illusion when we project it onto the very small with Quantum Mechanics.

For instance, it is an illusion that the Sun goes round the Earth. This has been an illusion for 200,000 years because we projected our very limited perceptions onto the solar system.

And it is exactly the same with the very big with Relativity and the very small with Quantum Mechanics, we project our limited and special case perceptions onto and into the universe.

We are all Alice through the looking glass of the microscope and the telescope - topsy turvy.

When I find I am illusioned, I change my mind. What do you do?

Read up on the Correspondence Principle, mmm'kay?

 

[Caw the rooks]

What we experience is not an illusion as such but actually just a very specific case. We are experiencing what the universe is in this specific case. Just like stars happen when gravity clumps together gas clouds, this experience is what happens when a structure such as our brains and bodies exist. We are experiencing a small section of the truth.

 

[Kullervo]

I am told I am off topic when I take the topic to an abstract level and you are unable to follow me and so naturally think I am off topic.

Naturally you believe the topic of this thread is Quantum Mechanics when at the abstract level Quantum Mechanics is merely an example. At the abstract level this thread is about changing our mind in face of conflicting evidence.

Our intellectual problem here is a kind of blank literal mindedness that is unable to see the distinction between the example and the abstract.

You seem to quickly drift off into a number of different subjects unrelated to the thread subject - even if, as in this case, you're the thread starter - and make no effort to tie them back in in a logical manner.

If you start a thread with the title" Quantum Mechanics, Cause and Effect" and proceed to talk about perception and its inability to account for the quantum world, it's pretty understandable the way the thread has gone. And it is an interesting topic so the derail is unfortunate.

I don't think you deliberately derail threads btw, seeing you are doing it to your own. A better explanation would be that you can't help it due to low mental discipline

 

[Mole]

you're the thread starter - and make no effort to tie them back in in a logical manner.

It's quite true I don't live in the literal, visual, logical world you live in. Rather I live in a metaphoric, aural, associative world.

Plainly I offend your sense of logical order; and you get on my nerves with your limited perception.

To understand these two worlds, read Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan in my signature below. Thank you.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I think what makes crude unproven models like MBTI so popular is that actual psychometrics is kind of lame. If they measure something accurately, that something tends to be something worthless; if they're measuring something useful, their measurements tend to be imprecise. At least the MBTI has an intuitive appeal, even if it is rife with illusions and traps. I think you can salvage some value from MBTI if you use it properly. Then again, that's what religious apologists say about their spirituality. It's almost worse that they water down their illusions so much as to make them inoffensive and acceptable, making it less likely for people to challenge them and remind them that they're living a lie. It seems like cowardice, at times.

I do notice that a lot of people on the forum (myself included) are guilty of twisting facts to suit theories, rather than theories to suit facts. And since fudging the truth (even on a subconscious level) can make one uneasy, we seek comfort by gathering together electronically and reaffirming each other's lies. I find my problem is that I find narratives so appealing that I tend to tidy up the truth a little.

 

[Mole]

I think what makes crude unproven models like MBTI so popular is that actual psychometrics is kind of lame. If they measure something accurately, that something tends to be something worthless; if they're measuring something useful, their measurements tend to be imprecise. At least the MBTI has an intuitive appeal, even if it is rife with illusions and traps. I think you can salvage some value from MBTI if you use it properly. Then again, that's what religious apologists say about their spirituality. It's almost worse that they water down their illusions so much as to make them inoffensive and acceptable, making it less likely for people to challenge them and remind them that they're living a lie. It seems like cowardice, at times.

I do notice that a lot of people on the forum (myself included) are guilty of twisting facts to suit theories, rather than theories to suit facts. And since fudging the truth (even on a subconscious level) can make one uneasy, we seek comfort by gathering together electronically and reaffirming each other's lies. I find my problem is that I find narratives so appealing that I tend to tidy up the truth a little.

Yes, imagination is easy and reality testing is hard.

The big advantage of reality testing is that it reveals that which we can't imagine.

Perfect examples of revealing the unimaginable are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

So we can choose to limit ourselves to our imagination, we can remain narcissistic, or we can choose to break on through to the unimaginable with reality testing.

And I am sure we realise that reality testing, called evidence and reason, has given us to modern world.

Why not look it in the face? Or do we prefer to turn our face away from reality?