Oh! My! Georges. I wrote 'flue' virus. Argh! What has taken my interest recently, when I overcome dire needs for irreverence, is that the 'evidence' always seems to point to theoretical speculation we don't manage to construct as well as constructions that eventually give way to something better or seem better explanations of what we can do as experiments. I agree the cat was ridiculous enough to suggest we might share some decent Malt with it. There is much we can do in good sense that quickly lapses to some kind of 'agony' in common sense. I remain interested in micro-macro interfacing and what might be revealed that is not mental before we start construing its place.
On 16 Sep, 09:14, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > Schroedinger designed his "cat" in order to ridicule the Copenhagen > Interpretation of QM. Yet, the CI idiots did not notice it and > made the symbol of their stupidity to their devise. > BTW "QM" is a misnomer. Particle physics started with Einstein's > quantizing EM field to photons, as a field based theory. > Then came for a moment statistical approach based upon Sch. equation, > misnamed "mechanics", because it could give GLOBAL probabilistic > description of a multitude of particles, but not a position and > momentum of a single particle, which is where mechanics start. > Unable to do mechanics, the "QM" interpretors, consolated > themselves with shamanic creationism of collapses, superpositions > and consciousness created objects. > It came back to order with the Klein-Gordon equation, improved by > Dirac, which returned to quantizing relativistic fields and replacing > shamanism with science under the name of Quantum Field Theory. > > As to the World Out There, or Transcendency, scientific theories may > be exported there by kitchen almanacs. Scientists verify/falsifiy > their theories with help of physical EVENTS, which are - however > it may surprise laymen - exclusively mental constructs, as explained > in "Natural Model": > > http://findgeorges.com/CORE/B_NATURAL_VIEW/a_natural_model_v_ab.html > > Cheers > Georges. > > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From: archytas <[email protected]> > > Subject: [epistemology 10807] Re: potpourri (Richard et Al) > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 2:04 AM > > > There is a sense of the 'world out there' into which > > scientific > > theories can be exported for consideration, demonstration, > > falsification and so on. Popper's World 3 is still > > clearly a > > construction. At bottom it seems to me that evidence > > is what the what > > the fuck of now meeting someone's network of experience, > > theory is > > always under-determined by evidence and we take some > > epistemological > > risks in evidential basing, but less than we would in > > believing in > > 'theory' - assuming we are not arse over tit in regarding > > history as > > having some meaning (if not in the historicist > > sense). Particular > > species of the teleological argument abound in > > neo-Darwinism, and > > biology may have a few descriptions of the nature Georges > > never meets > > whilst acting in positivist pedantry in the very 'thing' he > > ain't > > meeting - usually to some good effect as I stare upwards at > > the stars > > from the gutter and catch a glimpse of this group's blather > > mirrored > > in the window of some seedy brothel containing an overnight > > bag > > monogrammed G.M. and I assure myself this cannot be the > > nature he has > > evaded so well with a swift draught from my > > hip-flask. I wander off > > to my home in non-nature to ponder the space-time > > conditions in which > > light was faster and may now be faster than "the speed of > > light" as > > defined in vacuums we do not understand in a theory still > > under- > > determined by evidence. As I begin to bar the door > > against what > > passes for night in non-nature, I notice an old friend > > chased by > > village idiots and offer him sanctuary from the nature he > > never meets > > but frequents in some condescension. He tosses an > > overnight bag on > > the floor and all one can be sure of is that my best Malt > > will occupy > > a lower volume by what passes for morning in non-nature, > > for > > Schrodinger's Cat is mournful that he will no longer be a > > thought > > experiment in nature as lasers can now hold living being > > ('flu virus > > and water-bear) in super-imposition states. The cat > > is not sure of my > > friend's denial of nature, but sure enough to share my > > whisky with him > > while I dream of naturalising epistemology. The > > authors below are, of > > course, blithely unaware that Georges has had a > > superpositioned nature > > for much longer than most of us care or could remember. > > > Towards Quantum Superposition of Living Organisms > > Oriol Romero-Isart, Mathieu L. Juan, Romain Quidant, J. > > Ignacio Cirac > > (Submitted on 8 Sep 2009) > > The most striking feature of quantum mechanics is the > > existence of > > superposition states, where an object appears to be in > > different > > situations at the same time. Up to now, the existence of > > such states > > has been tested with small objects, like atoms, ions, > > electrons and > > photons, and even with molecules. Recently, it has been > > even possible > > to create superpositions of collections of photons, atoms, > > or Cooper > > pairs. Current progress in optomechanical systems may soon > > allow us > > to > > create superpositions of even larger objects, like > > micro-sized > > mirrors > > or cantilevers, and thus to test quantum mechanical > > phenomena at > > larger scales. Here we propose a method to cool down and > > create > > quantum superpositions of the motion of sub-wavelength, > > arbitrarily > > shaped dielectric objects trapped inside a high--finesse > > cavity at a > > very low pressure. Our method is ideally suited for the > > smallest > > living organisms, such as viruses, which survive under low > > vacuum > > pressures, and optically behave as dielectric objects. This > > opens up > > the possibility of testing the quantum nature of living > > organisms by > > creating quantum superposition states in very much the same > > spirit as > > the original Schr\"odinger's cat "gedanken" paradigm. We > > anticipate > > our essay to be a starting point to experimentally address > > fundamental > > questions, such as the role of life in quantum mechanics, > > and > > differences between many-world and Copenhagen > > interpretations. > > Comments: 8 pages, 4 > > figures > > Subjects: Quantum Physics > > (quant-ph); Mesoscale and Nanoscale > > Physics > > (cond-mat.mes-hall) > > Cite as: arXiv:0909.1469v1 > > [quant-ph] > > Apparently, this is about actually putting a flue virus or > > possibly a > > water-bear (tiny - less than 1 mm) in the Schrodinger's Cat > > super- > > position using lasers. Water-bears can actually > > survive vacuum for a > > few days. The old thought experiments get ever closer > > to being made > > into real experiments. This one might answer the > > question of whether > > large objects aren't quantum because of interference from > > the general > > world or whether there is a size or mass for quantum > > behaviour as > > Penrose (Danger Mouse's best pal) suggests. I can't > > wait for the day > > I can approach some old mate blathering on about > > Schrodinger's Cat > > and > > accuse him of being a mindless philosopher before setting > > up my > > lasers > > and water-bears on the bar! > > > On 14 Sep, 15:07, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Richard: > > > Are there differences between *scientific truths* and > > > PITS *truths?* I agree, generally, with Georges take > > on > > > the matter, except I would not call *absolute > > statements* > > > meaningless. *Nothing can exceed the speed of light,* > > > though it is an unprovable working conjecture, does > > have > > > a great deal of meaning. > > > ================ > > > G: > > > To keep it straight, the statement *Nothing can > > exceed > > > the speed of light* does not exist in physics. What > > you > > > doubtless mean is *information cannot exceed C*, > > which > > > is the well known theorem of SR, derived from the > > axiom > > > of invariance of C. Now this theorem is in no way > > > absolute. It's relative to the axiom, to the SR > > model, > > > out of which it's meaningless and to thousands of > > > experiments trying to falsify it, of which some, like > > > Aspect's pretend (IMO falsely) to have succeeded. > > > The axiom itself, like all axioms is relative to some > > > context which suggested it - here the MM experiment > > -, > > > and otherwise arbitrary, thus relative to the > > knowledge > > > and intuition of the propounder and to the model > > which > > > it is destined to found. > > > The widespread error consists in believing that > > scientific > > > statements describe, explain, etc. the transcendental > > > "World Out There", "Nature", "Reality" and what not. > > > They are strictly confined to respective abstract > > models > > > and beyond them have no meaning. Thus, they are all > > > relative. > > > Their export to the "World Out There" is known as > > > "reification". Once reified, they may play absolute > > > universality, flamenco, or anything. > > > ================ > > > Richard: > > > Hi Realist - nice to hear from you again. Yes, for me > > > in the sense that objects don't need human observers > > > to guarantee their actuality as characterised by > > the > > > *thing-in-itself* concept is sound common sense > > > > Jud, I have never assumed that Kant’s > > thing-in-itself > > > was referring to the differences between naïve and > > > representative realism. I thought that Kant was > > > talking about some kind of meta-quality, or separate > > > ontological reality of entities, as opposed simply > > > what can be observed. Perhaps a Kantian scholar out > > > there can set me straight on this?? > > > ================ > > > G: > > > Without being Kantian or any scholar, I have studied > > > Kant's system because it represents a rigorous > > synthesis > > > of the first enlightenment - the prerequisite to my > > > study of the second. I have written my conclusions in > > > the chapter "KANT AND > > > EINSTEIN"http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0f_kant_and_einstein... > > > > My present post can be understood only in the light > > of > > > this chapter. > > > > The Realist above seems to imagine Kant creating his > > > Noumenon (Ding an Sich) in order to refute the > > shamanic > > > claims of the Copenhagen Interpretation assesing that > > > "real objects" are called to "existence" by conscious > > > observations and upon the end of observation return > > to > > > "nothingness". Now, even shelving the > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
