Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 19:24 (3928 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: STRASSLER: Could you try to help me figure out where this notion comes from? ...... Certainly I do not think you will not find any discussion of challenges to causality from "virtual particles" (i.e. generalized disturbances in fields) in any modern quantum field theory book.
> 
> dhw: I don't know to what extent this challenges Ruth's take on causality, because I don't know to what extent the two approaches overlap, but I mention it because scientists rarely agree amongst themselves.-I don't know where you get the idea that scientists don't agree. Yes they argue theory among themelves, but science would not advance unless a concensus coalesces around varius advances in thought and theory. Einstein was resisted for some time, because his relativiety theory was counterintuative, but the evidence become overwhelming he was correct. Euclidian geometry had to give way to relativity.-> dhw: Basically, for a non-scientist like myself, the interest lies in the conclusions that are drawn from the science, and the general lack of consensus at least gives us a degree of latitude in our own assessments of those conclusions.-The apparent lack of concensus around QM is the confusion that appears to be present in trying to define terms in words that convey to weirdness. Strassler says one thing in his way and Kastner has a slightly different approach. I like him because he is very clear and refers to the underlying math but doesn't bring it into play, as any ontologic understanding of it is well beyond my feeble mind, without a math background. The math seems to bring into play such things as the square root of minus one. No wonder it is all fuzzy. 
> 
> dhw; I'm drawn to this subject because you consider it so integral to your beliefs, and because it appears to offer avenues into those vast areas of existence that we know practically nothing about. However, it may well be that I should stay out of the discussion altogether, and I most certainly should if my ignorance becomes a source of irritation.-Your questions should never be irritating. Not to a good teacher. What impressed me about Dr. Kastner is her approach to Heisenberg's wall of uncertainty. It is not opaque, but somewhat transparent so we can study transactions and understand why the results seem so unreal on our side of reality. The EPR paradox paper is a good reason to ask questions. Did both sister particles contain the same information or did they somehow remain connected at a distance? We know the current answer that they are connected or appear to be connected. I know this example goes back 80 years, but this is how science builds. And this all integral to my beliefs. The basis of our reality comes out of the quantum realm. It is understood by math. the book Fearful Symmetry asks the question, is God a geometer? Einstein is surprised that the world is explained by math. God is at the quantum level. It must be understood in the search for God.