> Although they sensibly tend to focus on interpretation at the particle level, avoiding the hype and wishful mysticism that would tend to crop up around its implications for us as individuals.
Is this yet another one of those scientific facts that does not require a proof?
> Too many imaginative people and popularizers have a tendency to jump from actual equations/constraints they don't understand, to non-scientific psychologically motivated "implications" and ideologies.
Similarly, too many imaginative people who lack adequate depth in epistemology and non-binary logic like to practice both on the internet as if they know what they're doing. And the beauty of it is: if the minds of the population have been adequately conditioned, no one notices.
But wait, there's even more Oracle level soothsaying of the unknowable below:
-------------
My response is staying with science, which just means staying with evidence and reasoning that avoids our unbounded ability to fool ourselves. I.e. repeatable experiments by others, tested model predictions, mathematical and statistical checks, etc.
That is all science and math are. An accumulation of tools and systems that improve the reliability of our thinking. They increasingly help us mitigate our exceptional talent for fooling ourselves.
If we find another way to "know", it will get included into science too.
-------------
I'm sorry to be such a party pooper, but when religious or mystical people make epistemically unsound claims, the knives almost always come out for them, a little in the opposite direction shouldn't hurt too much. And besides: "science" claims to welcome criticism, much like religious people claim to follow their scriptures. But then, who doesn't like to have their cake and eat it too?
While I get your general critique I am not quite clear if you are critiquing me, including me with the science inspired confabulators.
Just in case you were including me in that:
For the record, the many worlds interpretation just sticks with the field equations of quantum mechanics (extremely well tested).
It doesn’t invent the quantum collapse, which actually isn’t necessary to interpret them and which raises many questions that have never been well answered. I.e. when does collapse occur, how is information conserved if collapse keeps injecting information into all quantum systems, in situations with time reversal (different orders of events for different viewers in relativistic scenarios) how is information being destroyed. On and on. Collapse is both an unnecessary and problematic interpretation in an attempt to avoid a continuation of superpositions.
What we see as collapse is just the experience of being included in the field equations as the quantum systems information becomes too complex (via thermodynamics, information escaping the experiment) for superposition to be detected anymore at a practical level.
But as we learn to control larger and larger systems, we do indeed find superposition isn’t bound by mass or system size. In fact, all of quantum computing depends on it not being bounded. It is just a challenge to keep information in isolation, I.e. from spreading in a way that is unrecoverable.
Just as eventually we will be able to “simulate” intelligence in a quantum computer, we are already intelligence in a quantum system. We just can’t control the quantum information in us so we lose any systematic relation/observability to the superpositions of our particles.
Chemistry throughout our body operates consistently with the quantum behavior of all other chemistry. Our particles are no different from any other particles.
I think it's interesting (though not surprising) that your long response avoided every single piece of your text that I quoted, as well as my question and other text (ie: the unknowable) of my critique.
> Is this yet another one of those scientific facts that does not require a proof?
Quantum mechanics is full of unintuitive, amazing effects, that get hyped by non-experts into imagined meanings. The latter isn't science.
But the actual quantum field equations themselves are as hard science as it gets.
> I'm sorry to be such a party pooper, but when religious or mystical people make epistemically unsound claims, the knives almost always come out for them, a little in the opposite direction shouldn't hurt too much. And besides: "science" claims to welcome criticism, much like religious people claim to follow their scriptures. But then, who doesn't like to have their cake and eat it too?
> "science" claims to welcome criticism
Science welcomes well thought out analytical or experimental challenges. Not criticism without merit, contrariness based in ignorance of the subject, ideological attacks, or simple negativity - all those just waste time.
Think informed critique, not just any "criticism".
> much like religious people claim to follow their scriptures.
Science only works to provide the best, incomplete, but most useful model we have of the truth, at any given time, backed up by independent evidence and math. It is subject to new evidence, a deliberate awareness and focus on current limitations - which is where scientists spend most of their time - with the expectation that today's best understanding will be eclipsed.
In stark contrast, Scriptures claim to be the stable truth without need for justification. Scriptures often frame "doubt" as undesirable, and their authority as above evidence. Unbelievers are often cast as morally compromised. Religions are rarely known for encouraging the discovery and sharing of contra-evidence, or the search for alternate and better viewpoints.
Very different.
> But then, who doesn't like to have their cake and eat it too?
Not sure what the cake and eating it too is? Science for being hypocritical like religion? (Not my view, but trying to understand yours.)
>> Although they sensibly tend to focus on interpretation at the particle level, avoiding the hype and wishful mysticism that would tend to crop up around its implications for us as individuals.
>> Is this yet another one of those scientific facts that does not require a proof?
> Quantum mechanics is full of unintuitive, amazing effects, that get hyped by non-experts into imagined meanings. The latter isn't science.
Once again, you do not answer the question.
Are you asserting that your claim above is a fact? Yes/No
>> "science" claims to welcome criticism
> Science welcomes well thought out analytical or experimental challenges. Not criticism without merit, contrariness based in ignorance of the subject, ideological attacks, or simple negativity - all those just waste time.
> Think informed critique, not just any "criticism".
a) Please state unambiguously (Yes/No) whether you consider my criticism valid, or whether it falls into your "other" category.
b) Who decides what qualifies as valid, and is that done in a non-biased, non-ideological manner?
c) By what means did you come into possession of knowledge of the entirety of what all scientists do, and how they do it? (Here I am presuming that you consider scientists to be a part of science....and if you don't, I would then wonder how things like "Science welcomes" is implemented).
> Science only works to provide the best...
Please reveal the source of your omniscient knowledge. The supernatural is certainly allowed, but I've been led to believe that science folks "don't" believe in the supernatural.
> In stark contrast, Scriptures claim to be the stable truth without need for justification. Scriptures often frame "doubt" as undesirable, and their authority as above evidence. Unbelievers are often cast as morally compromised. Religions are rarely known for encouraging the discovery and sharing of contra-evidence, or the search for alternate and better viewpoints.
I'd say this is at least "mostly true".
> Very different.
True - but do you also know this much less famous part: they are also very similar, simultaneously.
> Not sure what the cake and eating it too is? Science for being hypocritical like religion? (Not my view, but trying to understand yours.)
Bullseye. Scientific ~believers/followers are indeed hypocritical, like religious people[1], and in many ways even above and beyond religious people (in that: if one has superior especially in specific ways scriptures, as science does imho, then violations of them are more egregious, in certain dimensions).
[1] I suppose I should reveal that the root cause is inheritance from People, though an ideology taking root in the mind is necessary to exploit its capabilities to their maximum.
Is this yet another one of those scientific facts that does not require a proof?
> Too many imaginative people and popularizers have a tendency to jump from actual equations/constraints they don't understand, to non-scientific psychologically motivated "implications" and ideologies.
Similarly, too many imaginative people who lack adequate depth in epistemology and non-binary logic like to practice both on the internet as if they know what they're doing. And the beauty of it is: if the minds of the population have been adequately conditioned, no one notices.
But wait, there's even more Oracle level soothsaying of the unknowable below:
-------------
My response is staying with science, which just means staying with evidence and reasoning that avoids our unbounded ability to fool ourselves. I.e. repeatable experiments by others, tested model predictions, mathematical and statistical checks, etc.
That is all science and math are. An accumulation of tools and systems that improve the reliability of our thinking. They increasingly help us mitigate our exceptional talent for fooling ourselves.
If we find another way to "know", it will get included into science too.
-------------
I'm sorry to be such a party pooper, but when religious or mystical people make epistemically unsound claims, the knives almost always come out for them, a little in the opposite direction shouldn't hurt too much. And besides: "science" claims to welcome criticism, much like religious people claim to follow their scriptures. But then, who doesn't like to have their cake and eat it too?