Your conclusion is profound--that has been my urgument (but lacking in words and expression)--that one can not factually define, determine or measure to the ultimate correctness--that (the universe) which, one is part of. Thank you for the clarity.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Timothy Monicken <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > -- nubiaafrika.blogspot.com -- 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.
