Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Have you read Feynman's QED booklet…? (Or -heavens forfend!- Whitehead's Process and Reality? )

Never mind: Just tell me if you think photons have free will… (I don't need to know where you're coming from; only where you are. Are you a committed animist?) I'll tell you why I think they don't…
Fair enough?

Would have no use for any of it because the omniscient being "is" entirely, when needing to use, you aren't entirely.

Ah, I see now. It was you who brought up "omniscient being" that got Oakdale annoyed and scared all over. You have to be careful with this. Americans have the Halloween and zombie movies. Omniscient beings are like that to them.

...to resolve the semblance of paradox one needs but to relinquish a certain philosophic postulate foisted upon us by Galileo and Descartes. Quantum paradox, it appears, is Nature's way of repudiating a spurious philosophy.

We need thus to take a second look at quantum mechanics, this time from a nonbifurcationist point of view. Now, to deny bifurcation is to affirm the objective reality of the perceived entity: the red apple, thus, is once again recognized as an external object. That perceptible entity, moreover, is to be distinguished from what may be called the "molecular apple," a thing that, clearly, cannot be perceived, but can be known only through the methods of physics. One is consequently led to distinguish between two kinds of external objects: corporeal objects, which can be perceived, and physical objects, which can only be observed indirectly through the modus operandi of the experimental physicist. The two ontological domains are of course closely related, failing which there could be no science of the physical at all. The basic fact is this: Every corporeal object X is associated with a physical object SX from which it derives all of its quantitative attributes. The red apple, for example, derives its weight from the molecular. The crucial point, however, is that the two are not the same thing; X and SX belong to different ontological planes--to different worlds, one could almost say.

The bifurcationist, obviously, does not recognize this distinction, since he denies the existence of the corporeal object X; but in so doing, he implicitly identifies X with SX. The credo of bifurcation thus entails a reduction of the corporeal to the physical. And in that reductionism, I say, lies the fundamental fallacy--the illusion, if you will--of the prevailing Weltanschauung.

...if cats and cricket balls were "made of individual particles," they would indeed be able to exist in unrestricted states of superposition; but the point is that they are not thus made. From a nonbifurcationist point of view, corporeal objects, as we have seen, are not simply aggregates of particles, but something more. We need therefore to inquire what it is that differentiates X from SX; and for this we shall turn to Thomistic ontology.

You,ersi -and some few others- go to great pains, to convince me of things I already believe… Why, I wonder?
Perhaps because you don't believe them, yourselves!?

What Whitehead said is, of course, open to interpretation… (i was idiot enough to read Process and Reality a few times… And he didn't make his weird philosophy in any way amenable to reason! He became a mystic…) I'm not saying that that's a bad thing; only that it is a non-scientific and non-rational thinking.

Would you reject both science and rationality?

I think you would.

The reason Heisenberg said that is not possible to be aware where a particle is, to determinate simultaneously location and speed, was because to observing it the observer influences the phenomena. (by way of needing to project light - or any other form of energy on it.)

From such simple statement I've seen things written that goes until particles a) are at two different places simultaneously; or  b) our mind determines where particles are;
Etc, etc.

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

So, we get the idea that appearance is appearance of something. To verify this idea we can consider its antithesis: Appearance is all there is - there's no further anything. But if there's no further anything, then why does it exist? How can it exist?

The why and how questions are typically not answered by sense-data, but by rational mind and intuition after sufficient organisation and digestion of the sense-data. If why and how questions are important and are to be answered, then the thesis that appearance is distinct from reality is inevitable.

Oh?! You still want to use the Ontological Argument?

"Sense-data" (and qualia, too!) are not likely more than convenient "theoretical" constructs…

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-28, 18:11:27

Oh?! You still want to use the Ontological Argument? 

I use everything that works. Show me it doesn't work.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-11-08, 23:37:18The reason Heisenberg said that is not possible to be aware where a particle is, to determinate simultaneously location and speed, was because to observing it the observer influences the phenomena. (by way of needing to project light - or any other form of energy on it.)

I said this very same thing earlier when I said in this thread, "Despite the impression that one shoots photons from the source of light particle by particle, photons still primarily tend to have wave-like nature. They collapse into particles only given other further determinants, such as the bombardment by particles which are used to "observe" the movement and position of photons."

I wish to interject that the Heisenberg Principle should not be confused with the observer effect.  The observer effect asserts that  the act of observing a system will influence that which is being observed.  Although this is important in understanding the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the two are not interchangeable.  The wave-particle duality states that any energy exhibits both particle and wave-like behavior. As a result, in quantum mechanics, a particle cannot have both a definite position and momentum.  Consequently, the limitations described by Heisenberg are a natural occurrence and have nothing to do with any limitations of the empirical (observed)  system.

I hold and maintain that Heisenberg was referring to what you call the observer's effect.

That's funny: Heisenberg didn't…

Wave/particle duality is not a function of observer effects… It's a fact of quantum reality.

I'm a fan of causality, Bel. I'd like to see -at least- physics preserve it, as a guiding principle.

(Bel, you won't take hints: You don't care — for arguments, evidence, or truth.    )