Guest guest Posted October 5, 2001 Report Share Posted October 5, 2001 Cato, > Agreed, for what it's worth, GS. This, of course, is like giving your victim a glass of water so that he will survive long enough for you to beat him to a finer pulp. > Our minds work by forming > analogies drawn from the recognition of symmetries, contrasts, > and repetitions. Symmetries in the quantum realm are apparently > in 10 or 11 dimensions. Contrasts and repetitions are below a > level of measurability and are therefore purely theoretical and > mathematical in construction; not experimental or observational in > nature...leaving us with a failure of 'imagination' for lack of > sensory input. This is a very interesting approach, since it makes intuitive sense of our limitations in understanding the microphysical level. However, I wonder if this can account for all the puzzles -- e.g. locality, the possibility of motion faster than the speed of light. BTW, another article I should have mentioned that goes into the issue of levels of explanation: Gomatam, Ravi V. (1999), 'Quantum Theory and the Observation Problem', Journal of Consciousness Studies 6 (11-12), 173-190. > Who, after all, can visualize 10 or 11 dimensions, > much less the contrasts, the shadows, they cast, not having 'seen' > them first hand? What I find fascinating in the extreme is that > quantum effects are both 'true' and 'unreasonable' at the same time. > There are no paradoxes in nature, only in our ability to understand > it at this level. The same thing might, by a devoted person, be > said about 'God'. > > WIC, Cato I feel better now. You can resume . . . IC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.