Something very odd with SMAC....

[YT]

quote: Originally posted by joer on 05-02-2000 11:37 AM Isn't the point of the Uncertainty principle of Heisenberg that there cannot be any such equation independant of the observer?

Not really. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a statement about the inability to precisely pin down the location and speed, simultaneously, of a particle, with our current technology. But this is a statement about our ability to abserve, not calculate. The reason you cannot know the speed and location of a particle by observation is that you must measure it's speed over some traveled distance, at which point you do not know the location anymore. It also is related to the fact that the act of observing a subatomic particle affects it. Since you cann't know both the starting location of a particle and its vector of motion, you can only predict the probabilitied of its location in the future (thus an electron probability field around the nuclei of an atom). In a way, you could say that Heisenberg's principle is the reason for quantum mechanics.

The Schroedinger equation is the equation used to determine these probabilities. However, it always produces at least two answers when you try to solve the equation. Obviously, we can observe and see which of the two really happens. But no one knows why one happens and not the other (assuming only two solutions).

Physicists have come up with two reasons to explain why one or the other actually occurs.
1) it must be observed by a conscious being. The act of observation causes the resolution of the equation.
2) Both occur at the point of resolution. One in one universe, and the other in another parrallel universe. Before the resolution, there is only one universe containing the potential for both (the tree has fallen and not at the same time), and the universe splits into two parrallel universes at the time of resolution.

Of course, Ockham's Razor suggests a third, simpler solution. We just haven't discovered the necissary correction to the equation that will allow us to come up with one answer. Or quantum physics (a cobbled together set of equations to explain things that are observed) doesn't work, and never will, and when the Grand Unified Theory is worked out, we can dispense with it.

------------------
Yours Truly
[This message has been edited by YT (edited May 02, 2000).]

[Famyn]

Can't argue... anymore... out of words.... ARGH....

[Vi Vicdi]

I was hoping to draw out a weird sort of parallel between the way the koan describes the tree and how quantum physics describes subatomic particles.

The point of my writing was merely that "truth is stranger than fiction." (Although I have a feeling that the "truth" of quantum physics is awfully tenuous ...)

I'm glad to have gotten such informed science in response! I had been hoping for a couple of laughs but was pleasantly surprised by the responses I received.

As for the sound of one hand clapping, Bart Simpson answered that one quite "handily" ...

[Chowlett]

To quote an author in book 15 of an immensely popular series...

quote: CL. THE OTHER HAND MAKES THE AP

Now here's one for you. Can anyone give me the source and answer to:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it, what colour is it?"

[RoadRash]

I have to say this: as much as those koans drive us crazy, they are sure good at provoking discussion. What I find disappointing about all such riddles is that they rely so heavily on wordplay. One can argue all day over imaginary issues derived from imprecise language. Look how much confusion occured in this thread simply because of different interpretations of the word "sound".

Sure, koans stimulate thought, but mostly they just confuse people and make them feel dumb. The ultimate role of these riddles is to enhance the reputation of monks as the guardians of mysteries. How sad that the mysteries they value are so literally useless. It is no accident that these people hark from the most scientifically backward places on the planet. Mysticism can only survive in the absence of true understanding. That's why every good mystic does his/her best to denounce science at every opportunity.

We should respect the mystics' way of life, but we should also be aware that WE are the masters of reality, not them. Sure, some of them can exert limited control over their heart rates, but we can do open heart surgery!!!

[YT]

quote: Originally posted by RoadRash on 05-03-2000 10:31 PM What I find disappointing about all such riddles is that they rely so heavily on wordplay. One can argue all day over imaginary issues derived from imprecise language. Look how much confusion occured in this thread simply because of different interpretations of the word "sound".

RR: actually, the confusion over the interpretation of sound occurs because we, as a scientifically trained people, overanalyse the question. The point is not to determine what kind of sound the question is talking about, but to consider the nature of reality.

quote: The ultimate role of these riddles is to enhance the reputation of monks as the guardians of mysteries. How sad that the mysteries they value are so literally useless. It is no accident that these people hark from the most scientifically backward places on the planet. Mysticism can only survive in the absence of true understanding. That's why every good mystic does his/her best to denounce science at every opportunity.

I beg to differ. Mysticism for it's own sake has failings, but they are the same failings that science for it's own sake has. When you start to believe that there is only one possible solution to a problem, you close off many windows of opportunity for the future. Many top scientists today are close to the monks of the hinterlands that you refer to, using a specialized language to make themselves incomprehendable to laymen and enhance their own reputation.

We may be capable of doing many things with science, on a repeating basis (ie - anyone with the knowledge can perform the same process), that mysical/magical approaches have failed to do. But to claim that science is the only way, and the best way, is closing your mind to possibilities. And to deny the concepts of such mysticism may prevent future scientific discoveries.

For example, if telepathy is real, and you deny it based on the fact that it smacks of 'mysticism', then you deny yourself the ability to study it, understand it, find the rules that apply, and ultimately utilize it. Imagine if the concept of telepathy was so well understood that we could constuct a device similar to a cell phone that enabled thought to thought communications. Or a device that enabled a psychiatrist to probe the consciousness of a mentally ill person to find the root of their problem.

Similarly, many people deny God based on 'science'. Personally, I am not religious in the slightest. But since I have studied enough science, I know there is actually a physical location where God could exist, and yet we might never encounter Him. If He existed in spacial dimensions 4+ (while we exist in 1-3), we could even explain the Messiah as the three dimensional projection of God.

etc., etc. with many so-called 'mystical' concepts.

Learn to keep an open mind. You will encounter/discover many things that are not true, but you might encounter an occassional TRUTH as well.


------------------
Yours Truly
[This message has been edited by YT (edited May 04, 2000).]

[Helium Pond]

One of my favorite little snippets of faux mysticism comes from the Monkees' movie, Head, and begins with something like this:

"A scientifically tested truth of our times, my friends, is that the subconscious mind, which feeds its impulses directly to the brain, is unable to distinguish between the real and the vividly imagined experience... If there is a difference... And most of us believe that there is..."

And it ends with the mystic saying:
"But why should you listen to me? And why should I speak? For I know nothing!"

Which I always thought was just about the best way any preacher could close any sermon.

All of which was prompted by the comment about koans mainly seving as a tool for reinforcing the monks' power. How about hitting people on the head with sticks? That's another tool for enlightening people, used by one of those famous old zen monks.

While I personally believe in the ultimately beneficial nature of technology, and I'm not one to say "We'd be better off living in trees," I think the cultivation of an attentive mind and a compassionate heart have to be seen as worthwhile pursuits, no matter what the level of technology. Also, I'm not sure the claim that these religions all come from backwater countries is entirely accurate. Presently, perhaps, but I seem to recall that the spread of Buddhism went hand-in-hand with the spread of reverence for literacy in many Asian countries. And the blanket statement about mystics renouncing science is also a bit hasty. The Dalhai Llama has said that he doesn't find any contradictions between Western science and Tibetan Buddhism. Judaism, which has a strong mustical component that is currently something of a fad, has always respected men of learning. And we should not forget that the animosity between Christianity and science has only happened in the last two centuries. Before that, the Catholic Church was the patron of a great deal of scientific pursuit. (Yeah, yeah, Galileo, yadda yadda--if you've read up on your Stephen Jay Gould, you know that the Galileo story has been severely misrepresented).
[This message has been edited by Helium Pond (edited May 05, 2000).]

[Vi Vicdi]

Consider this possibility:

Mysticism is a product of human imagination which has at best only a tangential relationship with reality.

Science answers questions to the best of our knowledge about the world around us.

Technology is a product of human imagination based upon limitations imposed by science.

Now, as scientific barriers are lifted, technologies will be limited only by imagination, so that mystical "skills" which today are of dubious value may tomorrow prove priceless.

As a specific example, the only thing missing from the telepathy equation is a neural interface -- radio has been around for more than a century. With sufficent technology things considered to be "magic" today come within the realm of possibility.

Today's "Mystics" are like the tower jumpers who believed that angels or whatever would carry them aloft if their faith was strong enough. Instead they tended to plummet to their deaths. But the Wright Brothers did eventually "get it right", didn't they?

Many of the things that today are pure fantasy may someday be built into reality. ESP (for sake of argument) might not exist, but that doesn't mean it won't be invented.

Here are just a few inventions that are seconds-of-an-arc away from being "magic":

Ghosts? Tape backup + neural interface
Reincarnation? Tape backup + neural interface + a "blank" host
ESP? Radio + neural interface
Aliens? Artificial Intelligence and/or genetic engineering (if "home-grown" aliens count ...)
Aphrodisiac? Viagra
Telekinesis? Radio + neural interface + nanotechnology
The Fountain of Youth? Stem-cell cloning
Palm reading? A genome map and detailed answers to the numerous "heredity vs. environment" questions

Consider first that we probably won't call these things what today's "mystics" do, but that they will essentially function the same -- except it will be real.

Second, consider the wisdom of being careful for what one wishes for. Few people wish to be told they can't get insurance or a security clearance because of something in their DNA. Many would have serious qualms about growing "blank" humans to restore backup tapes onto so as to create copies of dead people.

Third, consider for yourself the bizarre things people believe in today that sound like "magic" and imagine not if they exist, but when they will exist, and imagine what the implications will be. Interesting, isn't it?

Truth will one day be stranger than fiction.
[This message has been edited by Vi Vicdi (edited May 05, 2000).]

[Provost Harrison]

The difference between alchemy and chemistry, trying to turn lead into gold.

[BustaMike]

Speaking of Buddhism, here's another koan.

Does a dog have Buddha nature?

can't wait to see how this either gets twisted or ignored...

[WhiteElephants]

Look, my whole point about the tree falling wasn't really to start an international debate, although this has been very interesting. I just thought that pondering why the bomber pilots are effected like the infantry was as useless as pondering whether a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it still makes noise. My point was that you can think about it for a bit and say, "hmm, wow!", and then get on with your life because you will never know if the tree makes noise or why the bomber pilots are effected like the infantry. I will be content the rest of my life not knowing whether the tree makes noise or not, and furthermore I'll be just as content, if not more so, not knowing why the bomber pilot are effected by mindworms just like the infantry. I could sit in a dark corner somewhere the rest of my life wondering not shaving, or showering, or going to work, losing my girlfriend, my job, and apartment, but I'm gonna go on with life content with not knowing. And the only thing in my miserable existence I'll ever be certain of is that because I can't know everything I will therefore always be uncertain of everything. And a wise man, who was neither a zen philosopher or scientist, once said to me when I was searching the parking lot for my car after work, "It's always farther away than you think."
[This message has been edited by WhiteElephants (edited May 05, 2000).]

[RoadRash]

YT: In regards to overanalyzing the question, I thought the whole point of the koan was, in fact, to overanalyze the question! The last time I checked, students were required to spend
weeks or even months pondering the stupid "hand clapping" question.

Also, I realize that the goal of the koan is to explore the nature of reality, and I like this goal. The problem is that koans seem to depend on wordplay: they stimulate our minds by provoking apparent paradoxes -- which can only exist in language. We THINK we are trying to understand the nature of reality, but in fact our minds are wrestling with an nonsensical problem. Some years ago I was stunned to learn that there IS a "right" answer to the hand clap question. In a further twist of irony, the answer is nonverbal. Yet it seems entirely appropriate that a "speechless" answer is the correct one. A paradox which owes its existence to imprecise language is resolved using a physical demonstration. It's as if the lesson to be learned is that language, by itself, is a lousy yardstick for reality. And that's something I've been trying to say all along.


Furthermore, I argue that "science" doesn't, or shouldn't, close our minds. A good scientist will take whatever approach fits the situation best. Statistical surveys, laboratory experiments, mathematical models, and even questionaires are just a few of the widely divergent approaches available. In fact, it is MYSTICISM which closes the doors on meaningful discussion. Gurus claim that they have access to hidden information which the common man cannot normally access. If I have become "enlightened", no one can challenge anything I say. If my source of knowledge is solely "from within", my position is impenetrable... and ultimately meaningless.


Helium: You said the Dalhai Llama "doesn't find any contradictions between Western science and Tibetan Buddhism". Well, most of my conversations with mystics have started out that way too. It's only later on in the conversation that the real science-bashing begins. I don't know if you guys consider yourselves "mystics" or what, but a cursory examination of this thread would reveal that many of you, at some point, part ways with "science".


And I agree that monasteries used to sponsor scientific research long ago. It was when the church tried to monopolize scientific investigation that they locked up the gears. China made the same mistake several hundred years ago, at a point when it was by far the most scientifically advanced country in the world. The intellectual monopolies of both the Chinese rulers and the Medieval Church were firmly buttressed by mysticism. Mysticism entered its golden age as a tool for stifling individual thought.

And yes, I am well aware of how precarious the intellectual balance is in the Western World. I am well aware of how "science" is in danger of succumbing to near monopoly-levels of control by powerful academic cliques. Who, as YT pointed out, wield fancy language to secure their oligarchy of the mind.

Let's acknowledge the value of science without taking scientists so seriously. They act like they know everything, but don't let them get under your skin. They're people, just like us. Some of them fudge their research. Some of them hide behind fancy language. Most of them are arrogant bastards, it's true. The great thing is, we're supposed to criticize their work! The Western Way allows open dialogue and disagreement, like we are enjoying here in this forum. The Mystic Mentality harks from a period of history characterised by monolithic psychological repression and intolerance. Modern mysticism is doing it's best to adjust, to be tolerant. But it still can't tolerate a good argument. It flees from facts and figures like a vampire hiding from the sun.


...Oops, got carried away!
RoadRash

[Vi Vicdi]

Ever since the late 80's scientists have seemed to me to be experiencing a newfound humility.

I can't carry on a conversation with a scientist without hearing about things like Mendel or Plate Tectonics.

Plate Tectonics especially has had a profound if delayed impact on the scientific community -- today's scientists were students when science got smacked down hard by its "discovery" that it had goofed and poo-pooed this theory simply because it came from a weatherman.

Now look at scientists in the media today like Woody Flowers or Bob Metcalfe or Cliff Stoles and tell me they don't understand the need to be both humble and rigorous in the face of the unknown. Even Carl Sagan took it down a couple of notches in his book Contact. (He also predicted the earth would turn into a frozen wasteland if Bush liberated Kuwait, but political agendas nuke scientific objectivity faster than the second hand on the BAS doomsday clock!)

Many of the complaints about scientists being dogmatic, closed-minded jerks were true just 15 years ago, but since then I am actually surprised by the level of humility and respect for the discipline I have seen among scientists.

Was it Plate Tectonics? AIDS? Nuclear technology? The Cold War? The Hippies? The personal computer? A healthy respect for the ever-growing list of things that could conceivably be screwed up as technology advances (such as the environment)? The end of the Cold War? Nerd chic? (If scientists are "cool" they don't have to overcompensate with macho arrogance?) I don't know.

What I do know is that the preachy knowitall is passe', and every scientist I have ever met since reaching adulthood has been humble, kind, honest, above all curious, and yet just as full of intellectual fire and hardcore scienific rigor as ever. A kind of childlike playfulness seems to have asserted itself as well, a sense of wonder, a personal world of infinite discovery to which an arrogant self-absorbed egghead would be blind.

Maybe it's catching ... even the few religious people I've seen around lately seem to have toned it down some.

Politicians, on the other hand, hide nervously behind their fake smiles or mock outrage praying that we civilians don't realize the emperors have no clothes. Surely they believe that as long as they remain surrogates for their constituents' power they can not only get naked but throw in an intern while they're at it and nobody will bat an eyelash -- politicians couldn't possibly really believe all that smack they're always talking, could they?

It is a wonder they bother with the charade at all. It isn't that impossibly twisted yet childishly idealistic cant they speak -- it is the money and power they connect to their supporters that gets them elected. Do they really need to say that because it takes a village to raise a child we need an activist government willing to launch bold new education initiatives when we all know it's just payola?

But I guess as long as pimps have gold chains and purple cars politicians will boldly wear theirs, too. Neither one, it seems, can stand the thought of being naked.
[This message has been edited by Vi Vicdi (edited May 09, 2000).]

[Famyn]

Personally, I don't know how the worms affect the fighter pilots either. Regardless of whether or not the pilot of the plane knows they are there, how do the worms know the plane is up in the sky to affect it?