Fukr

These are not singular quack scientists with ludacris ideas about the universe, these studies are accepted in the scientific community and are widley regarded as the foundation of our universe. To disparage such arguments can be of validity, but perhaps should be accompanied by valid arguments rather than to say respected researchers and theorists are just "crazy". The quip was rather good, though. Commendations to you.

No further elaboration needed. I suppose if I had originally wrote: "I am vehemently opposed to his scientific theories" then perhaps the thread would not have doubled in size with pro-Aristotle backlash. I have no objection to his work in philosophy. Although, after seeing many Ayn Rand quotes springing from posts in a fit of Aristotelian piosity, I wonder: Does everything in this forum abide by the teachings and values of Ayn Rand? Am I just an ignorant newbie or must we always venerate her works over everything else?

Oh boy. I can see my membership being defenestrated after this... First of all, I'm a big physics and science guy, so my hatred for him moslty comes from his infractions in those fields. Since Aristotle was one of the most respected and eminent thinkers at the time, in Europe, his ideas were held almost exclusively as the utmost of truth. Therefore, some of his erroneous claims were taken for granted. He postulated such theories as "The Five Elements", objects of different masses fall at different speeds, and refuted other theories of astronomy such as: Democritus' claim of the Milky Way being made of up of a multiplicity of stars and as well the claim that the Sun was one in the same with the stars. Aristotle's work may have held back science for centuries. There was also his "Natural Slave" theory which prompted much of European subjugation over indigenous populace. I understand his works in Metaphysics are widely respected and have no quarrel with them.

You need to able to open your mind a little more. Do you think Quantum is a dominating theory in particle physics because lazy scientists dreamed up some spurious excuse for an answer so they wouldn't have to do their jobs? This "non-sensical" theory is the foundation for more scientific research than ever before. Merely suggesting that scientists (who've chosen and worked hard to get to their positions, mind you) are a bunch of mentally lethargic phonies is preposterous. Just because something is hard to believe, doesn't mean it's not true.

I'd just like to straighten out some of the facts provided in this entry. As well as add some more facts and some of my own insights. I've been through many books, articles, etc. involving Quatum Mechanics and, would like to think of myself as somewhat of a theorist on the subject. Not quite an expert, though. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory states that both exact momentum and position cannot both be measured at the same time. According to theorists, a particle, let's say an electron, can have a pretty good idea of where it's going, but not where it is, and vice-versa. This statement of a particle "knowing" is/was very hard to come to terms with. But it applies in other situations such as Brass Dragon first stated: a particle appearing anywhere in the universe(despite the minute chances), the double-slit or two-holes experiment by Thomas Young and others. The "cat in the box" experiment is called: The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. It was created by Erwin Schrodinger in order to depict the absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Copenhagen interpretation states that an entity in the quantum world does not exist until there is an active observer to colapse it's wave-function. Perhaps countermanding some other statements made, theories and phenominae of the Quantum are based on mathematics. A "wave-function" is a wave of probability that colapses once it is observed. Therefore, a particle could be anywhere in the wave-function of an area until it is observed. With the already explained elements of the experiment, there is a 50 percent chance the cat will be dead or alive once observed. Schrodinger asked: What is happening inside the box when no one observes it? Copenhagen Interpretation states that the cat is neither dead or alive. It exists in a super-position of states. One could ask: What defines a conscious observer? Cannot the cat be the observer and collapse it's own wave-function? [What's important to add here is that quantum effects only apply to those on a microscopic level, specifically those below Planck's constant, sub-atomic particles] If the cat is neither dead or alive then surely these rules can apply to the macroscopic world. After all, things on our level are made up of particles that follow quantum rules. Some scientists argue, including Hawking, that there must be an observer outside the universe to collapse it's overall wave-function. But then what does that make us? Maybe things change depending on who is looking at them, that's what Relativity states, doesn't it? So how do we know we are what we think we are? Most generally, these days, things in the macrosopic world do not behave such as quantum entities. Scientists are not lazy, answer-dodgers. That's all I'm going to say regarding that paragraph about Multiple Universes. A)Reality has never been proven not to exist without being observed. But the equations say (and those equations have held for decades) that reality does exist and doesn't exist at the same time. Feel free to complicate the philosophical implications of that one on your own. Prometheus said: B)That if you have two entities seperated by some distance, that one particle cannot have a literally instant effect on the other particle (ie the particles cannot interact with each other without SOME amount of time passing). This instant effect is called: "Spooky Action at a distance" Einstein was vehemently opposed to this, and dismissed it as crazy. He even formulated his own thought experiment to highlight it's absurdity. This thought experiment was was carried out in the early 1980s by Alain Aspect. The experiment was carried out at CERN in Geneva, the largest particle accelerator in the world. Two photons of light were fired from an atom in different directions. These two photons' polarity wasn't observed until they were an arbitrarily large distance away. When the polarity of one of the photons was measured the other's was thus instantly determined as different to to the rules of probability. These two photons also still had the same wave-function as if they were both right beside each other. This proves "action at a distance" does apply but what does it say about the universe. First of all, it contradicts Einstein's theory of Relativity stating that nothing can move faster than light. "Action at a Distance" does. Anything faster than light is going back in time. So this may imply that action at a distance can go anywhere through the dimension of time to suit it's needs. Although, one can also argue that Action at a Distance operates outside the paradigms of space and time. That may give rise to alternate realities and multiple dimensions and universes stated by Prometheus. So what does all this say about MetaPhysics and the universe? As observers, humans appear to play a much larger role in the unverse's existance than first let on. It seem we need the universe and the universe needs us. What can be said about the quantum applications to the microscopic workings of the brain? Do brains make us observers? What about thoughts and feelings? What effects do those have on our world? What really got the wheels turning in my brain was when I heard: "If I die, nothing exists." To answer your question, Brass Dragon, what axioms in particular are you refering to? The axiom of classical mechanics? Newtonian physics? What of common sense? Don't trust common sense in the quantum world. It will serve you no pupose there. This is also why people are so skeptical of the quantum world, is because of common sense. I hope I may have enlightened and helped you with your quandary and that you may explore the quantum universe and it's wonders further.

I've actually experienced this occurance myself. When trying to enunciate myself to others, I often run them into confusion. The cause for this I expect is that Philosphers have come so far in their respective field that they no longer have the ability articulate themselves to to others. You could say they're on a "different level" of sorts. Although, you would also expect someone so seemingly intelligent to able to work around the intellect and reasoning of others. At this point, I don't have a solid explanation/cause for this. However, I do know that I am vehemently opposed to Aristotle.