Brad Guth's Credentials

tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
That's silly, though more likely than not, or don't you think your
MI/NSA has the capability?

BTW; "tomcat" can also be spelled with the very same "capital 'T'".
-
Brad Guth


I have considerable experience: buzz, click, whir. I have spent
considerable time with the U.S. Government. I know both sides of the
equation.

On the side of the Gov't, we are dealing with the greatest threats that
the U.S. has ever faced. Evil from overseas. Evil from above.

On the side of the Lefts, we are turning into a military state which is
not that desirable for ordinary living. Constantly, there are requests
for the military here, and the military there.

What, then, is the solution?

We must strictly abide by our Constitution and it's safeguards. We
must stick with 'Freedom', and not degenerate into 'Facisim'. We must
keep a very strong and capable military. And, of considerable
importance, we must push our scientific and technological capability
through the ceiling. Why? Because it will enhance our military in
it's time of need, enhance our economic strength in it's time of need,
and by enhancing the forementioned it will eliminate the need for
extremist facist unconstitutional measures.

The Congress needs to begin serious -- MASSIVE -- funding of chemistry,
engineering, physics, mathematics, and bilogy. How? By pumping
serious money into both public and private U.S. colleges and
universities, earmarked for special projects relating to military,
transport, and computer/communications technology.

Also, the setting of of 'Chairs' at U.S. colleges and universities.
Roughly 2 million dollars will set up a Professor -- A Chair -- funding
not only him, but his heirs to the Chair in perpetuity. Such a
Professor is a freebee to the school where he stays, usually teaching a
course from time to time, but devoting nearly all of his working time
to various 'areas' within his field set up by the contract that goes
with the Chair.

The U.S. thinks nothing of building a submarine for 5 billion dollars.
Spend that 5 billion dollars on setting up 'Chairs' for professors and
you would establish 2,500 Chairs throughout the many colleges and
universities of the United States.

Stipulations can be made that research emphasize certain areas and also
that the Professors, themselves, have certain qualifications for the
Chair. It might be required that a physics professor, for example,
spend his time researching anti-gravity, or that a professor have a
Ph.D. in the given field and an I.Q. of at least 140 as demonstrated on
a government given I.Q. test, or have a given track record in that
particular area of study.

But, however it is done, our science and technology must blossom to
overcome our current difficulties. Simply ordering the military around
is not enough. They are very capable but have to have
science/technology on their side even when dealing with the 'threat
from above'.

Good truth avoidance, tomcat. At least now we know the solution isn't
going to be via "tomcat" that'll believe in anything his born-again
pagan and otherwise LLPOF government tells him.
-
Brad Guth

wrote:
John Ahlstrom wrote:
wrote:
What are you asking? Reality is without our help. If you can
demonstrate otherwise, I'd be very intrested in seeing such a
demonstration.

But see:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...pretation.html

Bohr himself had great difficulty adequately resolving this convoluted question.
The view he proposed as the second basic tenet of the Copenhagen
interpretation
was that reality is created only by the act of observation. In the
absence of
measurement, according to this view, physical entities have no intrinsic
properties. As Bohr stated this "creation-by-measurement" theory,
"the measuring result is produced only by the measurement itself"
(Murdoch 1987, p. 134).

Murdoch, D. Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.



--
When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

You're missing the point. Your references do not address the issue of
reality needing anything. Your references address the issue of the
ability of observers to come to some agreement about reality and what
it might do. This is a distinctly different topic than the one I
addressed.

Reality is. It is without our help. If you can demonstrate otherwise
I would be interested in such a demonstration.

William.M; Reality is. It is without our help. If you
can demonstrate otherwise I would be interested in such a
demonstration.
What kind of absolute "Mook" worth of wag-thy-dog silly words on
another naysay ugly-stick, of what clearly represents your intensions
of excluding evidence and thereby taking total inaction, is that all
about?

This contributed by "John Ahlstrom" I understand:
Bohr himself had great difficulty adequately resolving this convoluted
question. The view he proposed as the second basic tenet of the
Copenhagen interpretation was that reality is created only by the act
of observation. In the absence of measurement, according to this view,
physical entities have no intrinsic properties. As Bohr stated this
"creation-by-measurement" theory, "the measuring result is produced
only by the measurement itself" (Murdoch 1987, p. 134).

I've interpreted this statement to mean that without hard-scientific
measurements is when it's up to the best available and hopefully honest
observations and thus best SWAG of whatever fits into the observation
argument, as well as for having introduced the least compromises.
Unless you're blind and/or otherwise biologically via naysay mindset
dumbfounded, observationology is offering a perfectly good science as
much as math and physics because, in the case of the Magellan "GUTH
Venus" image of what's looking as though intelligent/artificial as
situated upon Venus is what can become replicated observations as
contributed by other honest souls, and subsequently given further
review and consideration by those having constructive intentions of
sharing reasonable expectations as to whatever's looking natural as
opposed to what's looking as though intelligent/artificial, that are
each of what's otherwise within the realms of whatever's technically
doable as long as your mindset and attached brown nose wasn't so
totally sequestered in the nearest space-toilet, especially if that
toilet is only allowed to exist within that 'all or nothing' mainstream
status quo box of yours.

Reality can be whatever you'd care to make of it. By recent example
would be all of those WMD in Iraq or any of dozens of other perpetrated
cold-war iles upon lies which you and your kind obviously approved of
and still uphold, including that good one of getting those nice Romans
to put that fellow jewboy on a stick, seems to equally suit your
anti-ET and otherwise naysay mindset just fine and dandy.

In spite of what you and others of your kind are telling us, there's
absolutely no technical reasons nor are their laws of physics as to why
visiting ETs or even Venusian locals couldn't have been making a go of
it, and as for exactly as depicted within sufficiently large/robust
structures at that. Everthing about intelligent life
existing/coexisting on Venus that matters is resolved with having
energy and sufficient loads of local elements, of which most likely
includes all the best elements. As for accommodating that requirement,
Venus offers way more than it's fair share of said energy (as in how
many terajoules would you like), and planetology wise it should by
rights have it's fair share of those important raw elements to boot, if
not far better off than Earth that running itself out of all the nifty
energy related elements and having been polluting itself to a global
warming death in the process.

Oddly, it's the "FW Taylor" BAA group of infomercial wizards that's
encharge of keeping the most recent of lids on their new and improved
ESA science, that which pertains to the geothermally active and thus
unavoidably toasty environment of Venus that's acting so planetology
newish like, and it's quite interesting at that. This form of BAA's
sequestered science represents a great deal of ongoing damage control,
and outside of the obvious reasons of their keeping myself and others
like John Ackerman out of that loop, whereas otherwise I can't but
wonder why that is?

Otherwise I'd have to agree:
When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.
When you get observations of whatever's looking natural as well as
otherwise including whatever's a little something that's looking as
though more than a bit intelligent/artificial, as such you make due
with giving it your best interpretation, because for the moment that's
all you've got to work with. Without having made such initial
observations, there simply wouldn't be anything of astronomy happening
in space, and not likely 10% of what's terrestrial either, and it sure
as hell wouldn't be the sorts of tax avoidance heaven on Earth as it is
right now.
-
Brad Guth

wrote:
John Ahlstrom wrote:
wrote:
What are you asking? Reality is without our help. If you can
demonstrate otherwise, I'd be very intrested in seeing such a
demonstration.

But see:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...pretation.html

Bohr himself had great difficulty adequately resolving this convoluted question.
The view he proposed as the second basic tenet of the Copenhagen
interpretation
was that reality is created only by the act of observation. In the
absence of
measurement, according to this view, physical entities have no intrinsic
properties. As Bohr stated this "creation-by-measurement" theory,
"the measuring result is produced only by the measurement itself"
(Murdoch 1987, p. 134).

Murdoch, D. Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.




--
When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.






You're missing the point. Your references do not address the issue of
reality needing anything. Your references address the issue of the
ability of observers to come to some agreement about reality and what
it might do. This is a distinctly different topic than the one I
addressed.

Reality is. It is without our help. If you can demonstrate otherwise
I would be interested in such a demonstration.




Such a "demonstration" would be difficult, but not totally impossible.
The Copenhagen Interpretation was borne of necessity. The 'Double Slit
Experiment' behaved differently when observed then it did when not
observed. Observed the photons were particles while, unobserved, they
created a wave interference pattern on the film.

Yes, I agree, "Reality is" but not "without our help."

For you see, that which perceives, which watches, laughs, feels,
remembers, questions, and wills is not itself an object. And, yes, it
is 'us'. So, "Reality is" but not without . . . 'us'. No watcher and
reality would be no more than an empty equation, a tree falling in the
forest, unobserved.

Whether or not "Reality" exists when we are not present in animal form
to watch, feel, and breathe, is open to question. And, what is it that
'Questions'? Why, us, of course!

If one of us dies then "Reality" doesn't go away for the others, but if
all of 'us' die then is it even meaningful to reference "Reality". By
the way, meaning lies within us too, not Out There. For something to
exist in the light of day requires 'the light of day', the light of
someone's eyes, or 'possible eyes'.

"I cannot think of any better reason for there being a World than that
it was willed to be." -- William James.


tomcat

In article .com,
mumbled
Tankfixer wrote:
In article ,
mumbled
Announcing the Brad Guth Haiku Game!

Try to find the hidden Haiku message in each and every Brad Guth psychotic-drivel-gram!


I've had a Cray2 working on that since we intercepted it and the poor
computer is starting to smoke from frustration ...

In that case, I have much better things for that CRAY2 to be doing.
Are you game?


Yes, we redirected it to run multiple SETI modules

Brad Guth wrote:

I've interpreted this statement to mean that without hard-scientific
measurements is when it's up to the best available and hopefully honest
observations and thus best SWAG of whatever fits into the observation
argument, as well as for having introduced the least compromises.

Your interpretation - as usual - is WRONG! So, your commentary is
NON-RESPONSIVE

tomcat wrote:

Such a "demonstration" would be difficult, but not totally impossible.

I asked for a demonstration that reality needed our help, not an
assessment on how difficult it is. Please try to read for
comprehension.

The Copenhagen Interpretation was borne of necessity.

The same can be said of every scientifically based theory. Ever hear
of Occam's Razor? You go on and on and say absolutely NOTHING.


The 'Double Slit
Experiment' behaved differently when observed then it did when not
observed.

On this you are wrong. You should really try doing science before
forming opinions about science rather than forming your opinions after
reading popularizations that appear on the backs of cereal boxes or on
the prizes inside.

Take a light source and shade a screen with an opaque material. Cut
two fine lines parallel to one another a small distance apart in the
shade. You will see that a Fraunhofer pattern for two slits will
appear on the screen due to the interference of light that will vary in
intensity according to this charge;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Fringespos.png

Of course what it looks like is a pattern of MANY light and dark bars
on the screen produced by TWO slits.

If you have just one slit you get only one bar.

This was done first by Thomas Young in 1805.

And explained as the interference of light waves coming from each of
the slits by Fraunhofer.

There was no mystery about it for 120 years! People looked at
it,didn't look at it. Nothing was mysterious about it all. Not a
goddamned thing! Certainly nothing at all like your asinine comments
here.

Then in the 1920s the photoelectric effect was discovered and people
began to wonder about the corpuscular nature of light. Bohr came up
with a pretty reasonable explanation of things and a good model for the
hydrogen atom by making certain assumptions about the MATH involved,
and folks looked at the math and tried to figure out what it meant
physically.

Then, they started fooling around with Young's double slit experiment.

What they did is figured out mathematically that if you dimmed down the
light source below a certain level, and replaced the screen with a
photographic film, then THEORETICALLY you would have only ONE photon in
the apparatus at a time. There's only so much energy in a particle of
light of a given color, and if you reduced the power of the lamp below
a certain level, and computed the flight time of the light from the
lamp to the photographic film that replaced the screen, then
THEORETICALLY you'd have only one light particle in the apparatus at a
time.

The question was, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN?

Well, it took weeks to get a decent exposure, power levels are so low,
but at the end of the day, you get a double slit pattern of many bars
JUST LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE AT HIGHER POWERS.

NOW, ON A THEORETICAL LEVEL - this doesn't make sense. Because there's
only ONE PHOTON in the apparatus - THEORETICALLY. But what really
happened is that we used photographic film and a very dim light source
to carry out a double slit measurement - and got the results we always
got.

But theoretically, it caused problems. Because it didn't jive with our
ideas of how photons should work, after the photoelectric effect was
discovered in 1920s.

People wondered how a photon could act like a wave and interfere with
itself in an apparatus. Theoretically there must be an aspect of the
photon that fills the apparatus and carries out the Fraunhofer
calculation. A pretty damned smart particle! lol. Theoretically
speaking of course.

We talk about the wavelength of light. A certain shade of green light
has a wavelength of 550 nm. About half a micron. Very tiny. But
theoretically there must be an aspect of the photon - the aspect that
causes interference effects - that fills all of space, or at least as
much space as is taken up by a double slit apparatus.

But realistically it was the same damned double slit experiment Young
did, with a few changes, in 1805.

We just got our shorts in a twist about how our ideas about the
photo-electric effect could be right, and still explain the double slit
results under very dim conditions involving photographic film.

Nobody knows what it all means at a very visceral level. Sure, we can
do the math and make predictions. But we're just turning the crank,
and getting the answers - we're not really understanding what's going
on. Anyone who claims to explain it is a ****ing liar or loon.

Now, there were other experiments of a similar type done after the
1920s. These experiments CLAIM to have observed WHICH slit the photons
went through. This is a misnomer, I'll describe HOW they did that
below and you'll see there are other things introduced. Others, who
popularized this sort of thing CLAIM (we're now talking about
scientists talking about scientists who missated exactly what they did
The popularizers say that when the photons were watched they acted like
particles. And when the photons were not watched, they acted like
waves.

This is a good popularization, one of the best, that covers most of the
basics

http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/...it.wm.low.html

But something's screwy... - I mean have you ever wondered HOW a
scientist could KNOW which slit a photon went through in flight without
disturbing it? lol-

Well, its a quantum eraser experiment. And its not easy to do, or
describe. And if we can't figure out what's going on with the 1805
experiment I guarantee that we sure as hell don't know what's going on
with THIS quantum eraser experiment! lol.

I've extracted the following from Physics 556 Course given at Stony
Brook University in the summer of 2002;

The light used in this quantum eraser experiment is a special state of
light consisting of two photons that are said to be entangled. These
photons are intimately intertwined, with polarizations that are
correlated.

The entangled photons are produced by a process called spontaneous
parametric down conversion. This takes place in a special nonlinear
crystal called beta-barium borate (BBO). A photon from an argon ion
pump laser (351.1 nm) is converted to two longer wavelength (702.2 nm)
photons. The two photons go off in two different directions. In this
experiment, we call one direction p and the other s. The photons that
go down path p are called p photons and those that go down s are
called s photons.

The interference pattern from the double slit is created and measured
in the following way. The s photons are the ones that create the
interference pattern. They travel through the double-slit to detector
Ds. The p photons travel directly to detector Dp. If Dp registers a
photon, it sends a "click" to the coincidence counter. The counter
waits for the p photon's entangled partner to be registered by Ds.
Once this second "click" is detected, a count is recorded. The counts
are tallied for 400 seconds. Then detector Ds is moved a millimeter
and the number of counts in a 400 second interval is recorded for the
new detector position. This is repeated until Ds has scanned across a
region equivalent to the screen in the 1805 Young Experiment, or the
photographic film in the 1920s experiment.

When we do this we get a pattern like all other patterns thus far.
Nothing unusual here. That's because we haven't 'observed' anything
yet. We're just getting warmed up.

To make the "which-way" detector, a quarter wave plate (QWP) is put in
front of each slit. This device is a special crystal that can change
linearly polarized light into circularly polarized light. The two wave
plates are set so that given a photon with a particular linear
polarization, one wave plate would change it to right circular
polarization while the other would change it to left circular
polarization.

With this configuration, it is possible to figure out which slit the s
photon went through, without disturbing the s photon in any way.
Because the s and p photons are an entangled pair, if we measure the
polarization of p to be x we can be sure that the polarization of s
before the quarter wave plates was y. QWP 1, which precedes slit 1,
will change a y polarized photon to a right circularly polarized photon
while QWP 2 will change it to a left circularly polarized photon.
Therefore, by measuring the polarization of the s photon at the
detector, we could determine which slit it went through. The same
reasoning holds for the case where the p photon is measured to be y.

The presence of the two quarter wave plates creates the possibility for
an observer to gain which-way information about photon s. When
which-way information is available, the interference behavior
disappears. It is not necessary to actually measure the polarization
of p and figure out what slit s passed through. Once the quarter wave
plates are there, the s photons are marked, so to speak.

The coincidence counts were tallied at each detector location, as
before, and it was found that indeed the interference pattern was gone.


In case you might be suspicious of the quarter wave plates, it is worth
noting that given a beam of light incident on a double slit, changing
the polarization of the light has no effect whatsoever on the
interference pattern. The pattern will remain the same for an x
polarized beam, a y polarized beam, a left or a right circularly
polarized beam.

It is peculiar then, that the presence of the quarter wave plates
causes the s photons to so drastically change their behavior. One
can't help but ask, how do these photons know that we could know which
slit they went through?

Increasing the strangeness of this scenario, the next step is to bring
back the interference without doing anything to the s beam. A
polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass light
that is a combination of x and y. It is no longer possible to
determine with certainty the polarization of s before the quarter wave
plates and therefore we cannot know which slit an s photon has passed
through. The s photons are no longer marked. The potential to gain
which-way information has been erased.

The coincidence measurements were repeated with the polarizer in place.
When that is done the data shows that the interference pattern is
back.

How does photon s know that we put the polarizer there?

Photon s and photon p are entangled. Photon p must be able to
communicate to s through some means that is unknown to us. It must be
telling s whether it should be producing a pattern or not. But this
does not seem to be the case. Things get stranger still.

The experiment up to this point has been performed by detecting photon
p before photon s. The erasure of the which-way information was
performed by modifying the path of p and then measuring s. One could
regain a bit of reassurance in commonsense by believing that there must
be some form of communication taking place between photon p and s so
that s knows whether to interfere or not.

Perhaps photon p encounters the polarizer and sends s an immediate
message telling it that it can again go the interference route. This
is not the case, however, as the next and final portion of the
experiment shows.

The path of beam p is lengthened (the polarizer and detector moved
farther away from the BBO crystal), so that photon s can be detected
first. The interference fringes are obtained as before. Then the
quarter wave plates are added to provide the which-way marker. And the
same set of patterns is obtained as before.

Next the erasure measurement is performed. Before photon p can
encounter the polarizer, s will be detected. Yet it is found that the
interference pattern is still restored. It seems photon s knows the
"which-way" marker has been erased and that the interference behavior
should be present again, without a secret signal from photon p.

How this happening? It wouldn't make sense that photon p could know
about the polarizer before it got there. It can't "sense" the
polarizer's presence far away from it, and send photon s a secret
signal to let s know about it. Or can it? And if photon p is sensing
things from far away, we shouldn't assume that photon s isn't.

Perhaps the funny business of entanglement plays a more important role
than we thought. The two photons are entangled. They are connected
together in a special way that doesn't break no matter how far apart
they are. It seems that these entangled photons also have some sort of
entangled connection with the quarter wave plates and the polarizer.

Entanglement is not something we encounter in our everyday world. The
concept of locality does not hold for the entangled state like it does
for everything in our experience. We encounter things that have a
particular location, we can say that a particular thing is here and not
there. We certainly do not encounter things that are in two places at
once. However, this is possible on the quantum level. Two photons
that are in an entangled state can be separated across the universe,
but they are still connected together. In this experiment, with each
measurement that was performed, the way the photons were entangled
changed. This caused the very strange results that were observed. We
like to think about photon p as being in one place and photon s as
being in another apart from p. But this is not really the case.. We
have to start thinking in ways that aren't consistent with what we
experience in our larger scale world. Entanglement seems to play a
very important role on the quantum scale of the world, so we need to
think about it in new ways.

This quantum erasure experiment is one of many experiments being done
that provides a way for us to better understand the strange nature of
quantum mechanics. We have encountered strange concepts like
entanglement and non-locality. Perhaps this is just the beginning of a
journey to a deeper understanding of the universe and new discoveries.


Now, the important point of disagreement I have with tomcat and
Guthball is that they claim to know what the hell this all means.
Problem is they don't even know what the hell they're talking about let
alone what it means! lol. But one thing can be said certainly about
their sort of self-congratulatory narcissistic hubris is - its a solid
block to real understanding and real progress. And it makes me want to
slap them silly when I am unfortunate enough to read something they
have to say.

the universe is stranger than we can imagine - and we do our selves and
the universe a disservice when we don't try to grow to accomodate its
realities. Reality does not need our support or understanding or
defense to be what it is. We benefit to the degree we understand
reality and our relation to it. But we don't control it, it controls
us, and that's just fine. Because we are what we are, and reality is
what it is, without our help - no matter how vulnerable that makes
people like tomcat and Guthball feel.



Observed the photons were particles while, unobserved, they
created a wave interference pattern on the film.

Bull****. The pattern doesn't change because you closed your eyes you
freakin' asshole. The experiment is more involved than that. Young's
results are easily described as waves. The photoelectric effect gave
us some ideas about photons and corpsucles of light that didn't square
with the wave idea. And when we dimmed the light down to one corpuscle
at a time in the apparatus we still got interference. This alone is a
theoretical conundrum that no one can figure out. But the point is the
Young experiment just did what it always did - despite our shorts
getting in a twist because we couldn't see how the corpuscular nature
of light jived with it. Its all in our head, not the experiment.

Now, when we fire pairs of photons that are entangled in different
directions and use a correlation counter to detect them, and a computer
to add up events, and then measure each angle at a time across the
plane where Young's screen used to sit - we can do funny things with
the photons - ONE AT A TIME - to make the pattern go away or come back
- IN THE ACCUMULATED DATA.

The experiment doesn't care if we're looking at the apparatus or taking
a ****. The universe is what the universe is without our help. Its WE
who can't come up with a consistent THEORY of how things should work.
We don't have any deep understanding of what the hell is going on.

That's ALL we can HONESTLY say. All the other mumbo jumbo is just
hanwaving by assholes.
..
Yes, I agree, "Reality is" but not "without our help."

You would be making an unfounded assertion then. Because the
experiment I just described doesn't need your help to get the results
it gets. The results are an interpretation of a highly technical
process. Whether you're looking at it, or not, or thinking about it or
not, doesn't change a damn thing. What you think the results mean in
light of your IDEAS about locality, phase and entanglement - does have
an impact, the experiment does what the experiment does with or without
you.

For you see, that which perceives, which watches, laughs, feels,
remembers, questions, and wills is not itself an object.

Hm... The only things that I have ever encountered that watch, laugh,
feel, remember, question, and wills, occur surrounding objects we call
human bodies. Has your experience been different? Or have you not
noticed?

And, yes, it
is 'us'. So, "Reality is" but not without . . . 'us'. No watcher and
reality would be no more than an empty equation, a tree falling in the
forest, unobserved.

Utter bull**** without an ounce of relation to what I originally asked,
so how could it be responsive? Sheez. Look tomcat, its real simple.
If reality requires your consent, or our defense, or our observation
even, to be a certain way - please demonstrate it. The 1960s versions
of the double slit experiment are inconclusive. They raise more
questions than they answer. Any claims that they provide an answer
is DISHONEST. So, why don't you be honest for a change.

The experiment didn't care whether you farted during it or not, or were
watching it or not. It only cared if you had the quarter plate in
front of the slit - and that only changed the population count in a
register when it happened. WHAT THAT MEANS NO BODY KNOWS! It
certainly doesn't mean that we need to take these great loads of
bull**** you're spouting and swallow it! lol.

Whether or not "Reality" exists when we are not present in animal form
to watch, feel, and breathe, is open to question.

In your mind perhaps. But reality doesn't care about that. That's the
point. And people who feel powerless and threatened in their lives,
don't like hearing that. So they grasp at any sort of bull**** to make
them feel they're in charge. They're not. We are an epiphenomenon a
side effect of processes we have no understanding of.- processes that
extend back to the beginning of time and forward to the end of time.
What we do, what we think, what we believe, doesn't matter to reality.
What we do what we think what we believe is a result of the operation
of reality which proceeds totally unaffected by us in any way.

And, what is it that
'Questions'? Why, us, of course!

Whatever. Whether we ask questions or not isn't responsive to my
original point which is that reality doesn't need our support to be
what reality is.

If one of us dies then "Reality" doesn't go away for the others, but if
all of 'us' die then is it even meaningful to reference "Reality".

Bull****.

By
the way, meaning lies within us too,

What things mean have nothing to do with my original question about
reality. You really go on and on and on about things to avoid a very
simple point just because it threatens your weak sense of self.

not Out There. For something to
exist in the light of day requires 'the light of day', the light of
someone's eyes, or 'possible eyes'.

Bull****. The double slit experiment in any form doesn't care whether
you're looking at it or not! Shaparelli used 'canali' to describe what
he saw on Mars and Percevel Lowell immediately concluded that 'canals'
existed on mars and alien races! Shaparelli's unfortunate use of words
fired up the imagination of the amateur astronomer Lowell, and created
a whole wave of bull**** that still hasn't died down.

The unfortunate use of the term 'observer' in certain of Planck's
writings have had a simliar effect here - unleasing a huge wave of
bull**** that shows no signs of abating.

"I cannot think of any better reason for there being a World than that
it was willed to be." -- William James.

These are articles of Faith, not of science and have nothing at all to
do with my simple observation that what is true is true and what is
false is false and while we might benefit knowing what is true and what
is false within the context of our understanding of reality, reality
itself doesn't change one iota because of our knowledge since it
doesn't require our support or defense to BE what it IS..

wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

I've interpreted this statement to mean that without hard-scientific
measurements is when it's up to the best available and hopefully honest
observations and thus best SWAG of whatever fits into the observation
argument, as well as for having introduced the least compromises.

Your interpretation - as usual - is WRONG! So, your commentary is
NON-RESPONSIVE




Come on now, William, explain to us what 'wrong' means. And, yes, it
is your commentary that is "NON-RESPONSIVE."


tomcat

wrote:


On this you are wrong. You should really try doing science before
forming opinions about science rather than forming your opinions after
reading popularizations that appear on the backs of cereal boxes or on
the prizes inside.



(Peering into the box of "Shrodie's Quantum Cereal" to find a small dead
cat at the bottom. But when did it die?) ;-)

Take a light source and shade a screen with an opaque material. Cut
two fine lines parallel to one another a small distance apart in the
shade. You will see that a Fraunhofer pattern for two slits will
appear on the screen due to the interference of light that will vary in
intensity according to this charge;




You want to really see something spectacular along these lines (no pun
intended) do the following:
Get a low powered lab laser, wait for night, shoot it a couple of city
blocks so that the beam spreads out to a foot or so in diameter, have it
go through some leaves on a tree and then continue on a couple blocks
more till it finally ends up on the wall of a house. You'll end up with
enlarged images of the leaves completely surrounded by interference
pattern lines.

Pat

wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The 'Double Slit
Experiment' behaved differently when observed then it did when not
observed.

On this you are wrong. You should really try doing science before
forming opinions about science rather than forming your opinions after
reading popularizations that appear on the backs of cereal boxes or on
the prizes inside.


Now, the important point of disagreement I have with tomcat and
Guthball is that they claim to know what the hell this all means.
Problem is they don't even know what the hell they're talking about let
alone what it means! lol. But one thing can be said certainly about
their sort of self-congratulatory narcissistic hubris is - its a solid
block to real understanding and real progress. And it makes me want to
slap them silly when I am unfortunate enough to read something they
have to say.


At this point, at least, you are beginning to sound like William Mook
again. Remember that our backgrounds are different. We all have
'pieces' of the puzzle. So, pull your head out.

the universe is stranger than we can imagine - and we do our selves and
the universe a disservice when we don't try to grow to accomodate its
realities. Reality does not need our support or understanding or
defense to be what it is. We benefit to the degree we understand
reality and our relation to it. But we don't control it, it controls
us, and that's just fine. Because we are what we are, and reality is
what it is, without our help - no matter how vulnerable that makes
people like tomcat and Guthball feel.


Don't be so sure we have no control whatsoever over the Universe. Not
only do we effect mechanical change using our arms and legs, but
psychics have altered reality using only their minds (brains) and this
is demonstrated fact. Pieces of pottery have been materialized.



Observed the photons were particles while, unobserved, they
created a wave interference pattern on the film.

Bull****. The pattern doesn't change because you closed your eyes you
freakin' asshole. The experiment is more involved than that. Young's
results are easily described as waves. The photoelectric effect gave
us some ideas about photons and corpsucles of light that didn't square
with the wave idea. And when we dimmed the light down to one corpuscle
at a time in the apparatus we still got interference. This alone is a
theoretical conundrum that no one can figure out. But the point is the
Young experiment just did what it always did - despite our shorts
getting in a twist because we couldn't see how the corpuscular nature
of light jived with it. Its all in our head, not the experiment.

Now, when we fire pairs of photons that are entangled in different
directions and use a correlation counter to detect them, and a computer
to add up events, and then measure each angle at a time across the
plane where Young's screen used to sit - we can do funny things with
the photons - ONE AT A TIME - to make the pattern go away or come back
- IN THE ACCUMULATED DATA.

The experiment doesn't care if we're looking at the apparatus or taking
a ****. The universe is what the universe is without our help. Its WE
who can't come up with a consistent THEORY of how things should work.
We don't have any deep understanding of what the hell is going on.


You see 'Mind' as passive, nothing but epiphenomenal stuff. 'Mind'
however has to be part of the whole. The Univese coheres, because what
is separate is separate and that means unknown in theory, practice, AND
reality. . . . William, this is you BOX thing again. When will you
put that cardboard away and stand on your 'own' two feet.

.
Yes, I agree, "Reality is" but not "without our help."

You would be making an unfounded assertion then. Because the
experiment I just described doesn't need your help to get the results
it gets. The results are an interpretation of a highly technical
process. Whether you're looking at it, or not, or thinking about it or
not, doesn't change a damn thing. What you think the results mean in
light of your IDEAS about locality, phase and entanglement - does have
an impact, the experiment does what the experiment does with or without
you.

For you see, that which perceives, which watches, laughs, feels,
remembers, questions, and wills is not itself an object.

Hm... The only things that I have ever encountered that watch, laugh,
feel, remember, question, and wills, occur surrounding objects we call
human bodies. Has your experience been different? Or have you not
noticed?

Ever hear of astral projection? Cosmic consciousness? Remote viewing?
And, how about the USAF asking for millions to study 'psychic
teleportation'?

And, yes, it
is 'us'. So, "Reality is" but not without . . . 'us'. No watcher and
reality would be no more than an empty equation, a tree falling in the
forest, unobserved.

Utter bull**** without an ounce of relation to what I originally asked,
so how could it be responsive? Sheez. Look tomcat, its real simple.
If reality requires your consent, or our defense, or our observation
even, to be a certain way - please demonstrate it. The 1960s versions
of the double slit experiment are inconclusive. They raise more
questions than they answer. Any claims that they provide an answer
is DISHONEST. So, why don't you be honest for a change.

The experiment didn't care whether you farted during it or not, or were
watching it or not. It only cared if you had the quarter plate in
front of the slit - and that only changed the population count in a
register when it happened. WHAT THAT MEANS NO BODY KNOWS! It
certainly doesn't mean that we need to take these great loads of
bull**** you're spouting and swallow it! lol.


Remember, we all have 'pieces of the puzzle', the Universe coheres, and
we are part of that Universe. Ever hear of the quantum hologram?
William Mook can't see the hologram because quantum foam keeps getting
in the way. Well, William, that means you caught up in the 'fluid
aether' at the same time! Try swimming and maybe you'll bump into the
hologram.


Whether or not "Reality" exists when we are not present in animal form
to watch, feel, and breathe, is open to question.

In your mind perhaps. But reality doesn't care about that. That's the
point. And people who feel powerless and threatened in their lives,
don't like hearing that. So they grasp at any sort of bull**** to make
them feel they're in charge. They're not. We are an epiphenomenon a
side effect of processes we have no understanding of.- processes that
extend back to the beginning of time and forward to the end of time.
What we do, what we think, what we believe, doesn't matter to reality.
What we do what we think what we believe is a result of the operation
of reality which proceeds totally unaffected by us in any way.

You are the one making an unwarrented assumption: "We are an
epiphenomenon a
side effect of processes we have no understanding of.- processes that
extend back to the beginning of time and forward to the end of time." When did that get cut into granite? It's the BOX again, isn't it?


And, what is it that
'Questions'? Why, us, of course!

Whatever. Whether we ask questions or not isn't responsive to my
original point which is that reality doesn't need our support to be
what reality is.

You haven't defended you 'Point' satisfactorily. Tell me about your
cardboard, cut in granite, BOX. . . . I will admit, however, that the
Universe will probably have a curve or two in store regarding your
point. No matter how hard we look we never see what 'looks' but rather
what it looks at. So, new things will appear. Presto! Smoke,
mirrors, and magic all before our eyes. One thing becomes another,
nothing is static, everything swims. Whatever size or complexity it
requires to deceive us the Universe will provide.

If one of us dies then "Reality" doesn't go away for the others, but if
all of 'us' die then is it even meaningful to reference "Reality".

Bull****.

This was a question, not a statement. Your answer to the question,
then, is "Bull****".


By
the way, meaning lies within us too,

What things mean have nothing to do with my original question about
reality. You really go on and on and on about things to avoid a very
simple point just because it threatens your weak sense of self.

Inherent in the 'Double Slit Experiment' is the meaning of the
experiment. Otherwise, it too, along with all else, disappears!

not Out There. For something to
exist in the light of day requires 'the light of day', the light of
someone's eyes, or 'possible eyes'.

Bull****. The double slit experiment in any form doesn't care whether
you're looking at it or not! Shaparelli used 'canali' to describe what
he saw on Mars and Percevel Lowell immediately concluded that 'canals'
existed on mars and alien races! Shaparelli's unfortunate use of words
fired up the imagination of the amateur astronomer Lowell, and created
a whole wave of bull**** that still hasn't died down.

The unfortunate use of the term 'observer' in certain of Planck's
writings have had a simliar effect here - unleasing a huge wave of
bull**** that shows no signs of abating.


We are still talking about 'looking'. Whether the spectacles are made
of glass and wire wrapped around your head or are instruments attached
to a box with two slits makes little difference.

"I cannot think of any better reason for there being a World than that
it was willed to be." -- William James.

These are articles of Faith, not of science and have nothing at all to
do with my simple observation that what is true is true and what is
false is false and while we might benefit knowing what is true and what
is false within the context of our understanding of reality, reality
itself doesn't change one iota because of our knowledge since it
doesn't require our support or defense to BE what it IS..


William James was no piker. And, yes, we are discussing what "IS" and
that includes 'us'.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:
wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

I've interpreted this statement to mean that without hard-scientific
measurements is when it's up to the best available and hopefully honest
observations and thus best SWAG of whatever fits into the observation
argument, as well as for having introduced the least compromises.

Your interpretation - as usual - is WRONG! So, your commentary is
NON-RESPONSIVE


Come on now, William, explain to us what 'wrong' means. And, yes, it
is your commentary that is "NON-RESPONSIVE."

tomcat,
Stop contributing into this topic, as it's just ****ing off the
mainstream status quo something offal.

Besides, you're asking a certified naysay mindset of yet another
e-spook or e-mole such as William Mook to be constructively
contributing to a given topic or sub-topic that you've introduced.
That's only going to work if you'd care to discuss and thereby worship
the likes of his all-or-nothing nuclear thruster usage. As otherwise
Mook is going to seriously whack you with his thick CIA World Fact
Book.
-
Brad Guth