Let me throw another *wrench* into these seemingly esoteric *mechanics*... it involves the generally accepted "factors" of *causality* in a 1:1 correspondence with the known "areas" of our shared [system] *boundedness*- *recursive* & *dimensional*. We *cannot* hope to bring the needed "clarity of perception" to bear on the subatomic world for the very reason of that *recursive, dimensional boundedness*. Should we *ever* *evolve* to the point where we are able to transcend the dimensionality that presently, effectively *binds*our "halls of perception," then (and *only* then?) may we put these probabilistic arguments to rest...
Faithfully, Chreodman On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:34 PM, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]>wrote: > God doesn't play dice: cause and effect > (causality and dependence) > > Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" because he didn’t accept > the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. He thought > that behind the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory some > real process is hidden. This real process makes the situation > probabilistic. Thinking so - Einstein wasn’t alone. > P. Langevin told, that to speak about crash of unity between > cause and effect is ‘ intellectual lechery’. And Lorentz, > de Broglie, Schrodinger believed that the situation in the > micro world can be explained in details. All of them considered > that the particles and fields exist in real space and time and they > can move from one point to another. And this situation is possible > to describe not only probabilistically but in details too. > # > But other group of scientists didn’t agree with them. > Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must > refuse to describe particle’s behaviour to the smallest detail. > Here is enough to use Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. > Most scientists agreed with them saying: ‘There isn’t better > interpretation quantum physics than Heisenberg’s ’. > From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation > and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without > success. And at last Feynman said: ‘I think I can safely say > that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’ And somebody > agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can > accustomed to it. > Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world > and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks, > dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions > and new symmetries . . .and etc) > # > I try to understand the situation. > 1. > We have dualistic particle as a ‘ math point’. > 2. > We have two kinds of space: > a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow - > b) separate independent space and independent time (3D+t) > 3. > The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point > to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t). > # > This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved. > Is this situation hard puzzle ? > Isn’t clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D ) > and its shadow – (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle – problem ? > But these categories of being scientists try no debate now. > Why? > Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . . > . . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I don’t know. > # > I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting > book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation. > I must reread it again. > Where is it? Here it is: > Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: ‘The Praise of Folly.’ > ===============. > All the best. > Socratus. > > -- > 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]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- 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.
