QM - Fact or Fantasy

[Ilya Startsev]

You are on a roll with your posts, Andie!

 

<snip>

 

In this respect, 'Identity' doesn't describe either an object's behavior or its capacities. Moreover, because science is constantly up-dating what said capacities and behaviors are, to be seen as a 'law' would require Identity to constantly alter its own criteria. This, of course, is nonsense.

 

<snip>

 

That's why my concept of the law of becoming, non-A is A, should be considered. The law of identity, as it is, is incomplete in describing our (complete) reality.

 

A Platonist, of course would disagree. To him/her, 'Identity' is grasped as an 'idea', then declared as self-evident, intuitive, 'axiomatic', whatever. Platonists don't need their ideas supported by material reality. . . . Rand's views, qua chalkboard, appear to fall within the Platonic purview. To this extent, Ii would disagree with her--at least s expressed by you, 'Plasmatic'. For the sake of argument, perhaps there's more...

 

Your description of an Objectivist is incomplete. The law of identity is not an end-in-itself for Objectivists but the method. And you got it backwards. Platonic "purview" falls within Objectivism.

 

If you carefully read my post, you'll discover the name 'Bell', who was a practicing Particle Physicist that was very pro-Einstein and anti-Bohr regarding debates.

 

As a hostile party, he was the one who challenged QMers by his own, not their, standards of consistency.

 

If Aspect's proof  doesn't meet yours, then I'm afraid you'll have to be far more specific as to why.. In other words, the conclusion 'far greater than the speed of light' is consistent with all photon interactive behaviors. 

 

AH

 

Bell's used his "standard of consistency" to independently confirm the schism between QM and Rel. So what?

 

A photon is not a complete wave, but a part of a wave, a localization. But two photons can be a wave (like two points make an interval on a line). The photons traveling at the speed of light is only that which we can sense. The question is what we cannot sense. We cannot sense dark matter/energy. In fact, we cannot sense much of energy, although we can model it. I think the answer lies somewhere therein.

 

Edit to elaborate on my answer: Maybe it has to do with the structure of electromagnetic radiation itself. In his book Programming the Universe (2006), Seth Lloyd said that there is nothing spooky about quantum entanglement. Quanta entangle while they are a wave going through a noisy channel and after they are separated and one of them is observed, the other has the remainder of what's left of that wave. I compare it to electro-magnetism of a wave. It has two opposite components. Similarly, quanta have opposite spins. Once you get the spin of one end, the other end is the opposite. There is nothing strange about this natural phenomenon, if you look at it this way. Just think, if you observe one (say you observe it in different universes), you will get the same results every time at this same time of observing the same photon. Just don't get spooked by the fact that the photons' spins were unknown while they were going through a noisy channel and were forming a complete wave.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

That's why my concept of the law of becoming, non-A is A, should be considered. The law of identity, as it is, is incomplete in describing our (complete) reality.

 

Your description of an Objectivist is incomplete. The law of identity is not an end-in-itself for Objectivists but the method. And you got it backwards. Platonic "purview" falls within Objectivism.

The law of identity is the fundamental method. It makes no attempt to describe reality or anything else. It is simply the fundamental fact which pertains to every existent.

In Intro to Logic, you might have noticed that it is also used in conjunction with the law of excluded middle. This would be the closest thing I can think of to non-A.

 

A table is either red, or it is not (which includes the qualifiers: at the same time, and in the same respect)

 

The law of excluded middle could be expressed as: A is either A or it is non-A. I find it more clarifying to say: An existent is either A or it is not.

 

In a broader sense, non-A, in and of itself, is the equivalent of the spatial void as you wrote about it in the linked reference.

Edited January 14, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Ilya Startsev]

The law of identity is the fundamental method. It makes no attempt to describe reality or anything else. It is simply the fundamental fact which pertains to every existent.

In Intro to Logic, you might have noticed that it is also used in conjunction with the law of excluded middle. This would be the closest thing I can think of to non-A.

 

A table is either red, or it is not (which includes the qualifiers: at the same time, and in the same respect)

 

The law of excluded middle could be expressed as: A is either A or it is non-A. I find it more clarifying to say: An existent is either A or it is not.

 

In a broader sense, non-A, in and of itself, is the equivalent of the spatial void as you wrote about it in the linked reference.

 

Greg, the law of identity is the fundamental method used by a conscious being to describe reality as it is. Yes. There is nothing in the laws of Aristotelian logic that dealt with potentials actualizing, as far as I can tell. This great gap is what I think should be filled by a new law, that of becoming, of actualizing, of changing, growing, developing into a new identity (for an old one).

 

This means that a red table cannot become anything other than red of its own accord. But a conscious being can change itself of its own accord. Or a photon. It can change its identity from an old identity (non-A) to a new identity (A) by means of going through some "unknown" process. Please, don't mix spatial voids here, since they are greatly misunderstood. Plenums cause Cosmos, not voids. Although it may be even more complicated than that. Cosmos may also lead to Plenum (somehow).

 

Let's first look at how a photon would change its identity by becoming a complete wave. Let A be "wave," and non-A thus becomes non-wave. A photon is not a wave. Make this photon a non-A (non-A here is already spetialized for this particular process of becoming, so yes, this is a mix of induction and deduction). Add another photon in a noisy channel. Non-A plus another non-A is still a non-A but (!) until a critical point is reached through entanglement when non-A becomes A. Thus a state from two non-waves changes to the new state of a wave. Apply this to anything that can change its own identity through some phenomenological event, and all problems are solved! The law of becoming is not mathematical, since it supports the notion that the sum can be greater than its parts (because identities are changed!).

[andie holland]

You are on a roll with your posts, Andie!

 

 

That's why my concept of the law of becoming, non-A is A, should be considered. The law of identity, as it is, is incomplete in describing our (complete) reality.

 

 

Your description of an Objectivist is incomplete. The law of identity is not an end-in-itself for Objectivists but the method. And you got it backwards. Platonic "purview" falls within Objectivism.

 

 

Bell's used his "standard of consistency" to independently confirm the schism between QM and Rel. So what?

 

A photon is not a complete wave, but a part of a wave, a localization. But two photons can be a wave (like two points make an interval on a line). The photons traveling at the speed of light is only that which we can sense. The question is what we cannot sense. We cannot sense dark matter/energy. In fact, we cannot sense much of energy, although we can model it. I think the answer lies somewhere therein.

 

Edit to elaborate on my answer: Maybe it has to do with the structure of electromagnetic radiation itself. In his book Programming the Universe (2006), Seth Lloyd said that there is nothing spooky about quantum entanglement. Quanta entangle while they are a wave going through a noisy channel and after they are separated and one of them is observed, the other has the remainder of what's left of that wave. I compare it to electro-magnetism of a wave. It has two opposite components. Similarly, quanta have opposite spins. Once you get the spin of one end, the other end is the opposite. There is nothing strange about this natural phenomenon, if you look at it this way. Just think, if you observe one (say you observe it in different universes), you will get the same results every time at this same time of observing the same photon. Just don't get spooked by the fact that the photons' spins were unknown while they were going through a noisy channel and were forming a complete wave.

Ah, yes--sage Heraclite by way of the Hegelian Dialectic: science, like life itself, is all about becomings.  

 

If for an O-ist the L-of-I is only a method, then it would seem that they would be far more inclined to scrap it when shown to be methodically useless.

 

From 1905 onwards,  discreet sets of experiments have demonstrated that a photon is both a particle and a wave. But since the expetriments don't talk to each other (incommensurate math, for one), no, you can't say that it's a particle inside of a wave.

 

No photons do not have pre-set opposite spins. This is precisely where EPR was proven wrong. Aspect demonstrated that he following photon during an emission will exhibit opposite spin than that of its precedent--which was polarized after emission.

 

Again, my suggestion is to read the received-wisdom textbook version of QM prior to indulging in the marginals. 

 

AH

Edited January 14, 2015 by andie holland

[dream_weaver]

Greg, the law of identity is the fundamental method used by a conscious being to describe reality as it is. Yes. There is nothing in the laws of Aristotelian logic that dealt with potentials actualizing, as far as I can tell. This great gap is what I think should be filled by a new law, that of becoming, of actualizing, of changing, growing, developing into a new identity (for an old one).

Peikoff indicates in chapter 1 of OPAR:

An entity may be said to have a cause only if it is the kind of entity that is noneternal; and then what one actually explains causally is a process, the fact of its coming into being or another thing's passing away. Action is the crux of the law of cause and effect: it is action that is caused—by entities.

I would extend this principle to apply to an entity which goes through a process and emerges as another entity as well as you touch upon in your next section here. 

This means that a red table cannot become anything other than red of its own accord. But a conscious being can change itself of its own accord. Or a photon. It can change its identity from an old identity (non-A) to a new identity (A) by means of going through some "unknown" process. Please, don't mix spatial voids here, since they are greatly misunderstood. Plenums cause Cosmos, not voids. Although it may be even more complicated than that. Cosmos may also lead to Plenum (somehow).

I was not trying to mix. I was trying to equate.

Let's first look at how a photon would change its identity by becoming a complete wave. Let A be "wave," and non-A thus becomes non-wave. A photon is not a wave. Make this photon a non-A (non-A here is already spetialized for this particular process of becoming, so yes, this is a mix of induction and deduction). Add another photon in a noisy channel. Non-A plus another non-A is still a non-A but (!) until a critical point is reached through entanglement when non-A becomes A. Thus a state from two non-waves changes to the new state of a wave. Apply this to anything that can change its own identity through some phenomenological event, and all problems are solved! The law of becoming is not mathematical, since it supports the notion that the sum can be greater than its parts (because identities are changed!).

I'm not really familiar with a lot of this. Then again, presumably I don't have to be familiar with it to use a quantum computer, should they become widely available in my lifetime.

[dream_weaver]

<snip>

 

If for an O-ist the L-of-I is only a method, then it would seem that they would be far more inclined to scrap it when shown to be methodically useless.

 

<snip>

 

AH

I'd be inclined to scrap it as well, if I didn't find it so useful. Considering Miss Rand has passed away, the likelyhood of her excising it from her works is absolutely nada.

[Plasmatic]

Ilya said:

If you read it carefully, you will find Bacon's name twice in that article. However, I should not have mentioned Bacon's name.

I dont know what article you are referring to but I am speaking of the article you quoted from on "epagoge". I have a pdf which I searched and it says ' "bacon" not found'..... What made you think what you quoted made Aristotle contra Bacon on induction?

[Plasmatic]

Andie said:

First, let's get something straight: you speak only for yourself. Anyone is free to find others irrelevant, or to ignore them, as individuals.

Of course, I was speaking for myself. I never said otherwise!

Andie said:

The chalkboard at everyone's back says that either you're talking about something that possesses a material substance or not. If so, then it can be acknowledged that human mind-constructs create a world of conceptual constructs that are hybrid. For example, 'baseball' is mind-dependent as an invented game, but could not be played without baseball oriented material objects, such as 'bats'

If not, then we're referring to 'ideas'. Therefore, either said immaterial substance (for example, a 'law) is either mind- created or discovered. A good example of the later would be 'gravity'. Of the former would be a speed limit.

I ask again, where did I say anything denying the above? Objectivism holds to an "Ontological view of Logic". That is, the method is objective because it is the result of "identification" of facts. All this is based on your confusion of the Oist view on "universals". Objectivity is a relation between subject and object.

Andie said:

A Platonist, of course would disagree. To him/her, 'Identity' is grasped as an 'idea', then declared as self-evident, intuitive, 'axiomatic', whatever. Platonists don't need their ideas supported by material reality.

Platonists are then asked, "If not a material reality, then upon what foundation do you establish your ideas to be metaphysical realities?" Historically, answers have ranged from a) Socratic whispering in my ear, Pauline faith and hope c) claiming 'axiomatic' status d) hissy fit and abuse of skeptics.

An Oist would say " show me a single thing that is not what it is and without reaffirming what your rejecting implicitly". "Self evident" means the facts are contained in any state of awareness. No further reduction is necessary. There are no contradictory material objects to be seen. And though you would like to sell the idea that "equations" tell one anything qualitative about an existents architecture you are sadly mistaken. The whole scientific realism debate in the philosophy of science would't exist if we could perceive "wavicles". The contradiction is only in the head of those living in the fairytale land of misusing language to speak meaningless nonsense by way of manipulating symbols.

Andie said:

Rand's views, qua chalkboard, appear to fall within the Platonic purview. To this extent, Ii would disagree with her--at least s expressed by you, 'Plasmatic'. For the sake of argument, perhaps there's more...

Substantiate this claim. Quote me saying what you claim is "Platonic".

Andie said:

Otherwise, You don't seem clear as to how you're using the term 'ontology'. although it's definitely not what's on the Great Chalkboard behind all of us, I'll be happy to comment upon your very special use of the term once you tell me what you want said term to mean.

The "one" in ontology is related to the question "what kinds of entities or "beings" are there?" Or more specifically "what is an entity"? Or what are the primary existents which have to come "first" [#1] in any causal sense? That is not a reference to your "oneness" as I would place it. I do recognize its use as a veritable synonym for metaphysics as well.

To say that all entities have identity is to state an ontological-existential-metaphysical fact.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Plasmatic

[andie holland]

Andie said:

Of course, I was speaking for myself. I never said otherwise!

Andie said:

I ask again, where did I say anything denying the above? Objectivism holds to an "Ontological view of Logic". That is, the method is objective because it is the result of "identification" of facts. All this is based on your confusion of the Oist view on "universals". Objectivity is a relation between subject and object.

Andie said:

An Oist would say " show me a single thing that is not what it is and without reaffirming what your rejecting implicitly". "Self evident" means the facts are contained in any state of awareness. No further reduction is necessary. There are no contradictory material objects to be seen. And though you would like to sell the idea that "equations" tell one anything qualitative about an existents architecture you are sadly mistaken. The whole scientific realism debate in the philosophy of science would't exist if we could perceive "wavicles". The contradiction is only in the head of those living in the fairytale land of misusing language to speak meaningless nonsense by way of manipulating symbols.

Andie said:

Substantiate this claim. Quote me saying what you claim is "Platonic".

Andie said:

The "one" in ontology is related to the question "what kinds of entities or "beings" are there?" Or more specifically "what is an entity"? Or what are the primary existents which have to come "first" [#1] in any causal sense? That is not a reference to your "oneness" as I would place it. I do recognize its use as a veritable synonym for metaphysics as well.

To say that all entities have identity is to state an ontological-existential-metaphysical fact.

My confusion over your use of 'ontology' was its redundant linkage to 'metaphysics'. Perhaps, then,  we can agree with the Great Chalkboard Account of 'ontology' as dealing with the most primary way of ordering reality--ie as a branch of metaphysics--and get on with content.

 

In this regard, linking ontology to 'existential' seems a s bit louche. Whereas the former more or less indicates a rational account of the world, the later term was created to take subjectivity as philosophically meaningful--as an outgrowth of 'Phenomenology', as it were.

 

So yes, then, it's quite evident that 'logic' is seen by you and Rand to be 'primary'. If any particular science doesn't meet your 'logical' standards, then it gets the heave-ho. So all you're doing is re-stating what you've already written--now just tossing in 'ontology' for good measure.

 

Yet your particular ontology seems unique in that its claims do not rest upon demonstrative grounds. By contrast, let's take Searle's wonderful description of computers: while epistemologically objective, are still nevertheless ontologically subjective, as they depend upon humans for their existence.

 

By contrast, your ontology, lacking suitable demonstrative grounds, defaults back to Plato. All you know is what your mind declares as intuitively true--thereby 'axiomatic'. The Athenians, confronting Paul's testament to Jesus as such a Platonic ruse, called him a 'sausage peddler'. 

 

A few of my criticisms re your denial of QM as 'illogical' are as follows:

 

* We use QM as a part of our daily lives: transistors and GMR to name two. To say, 'What;s practical is primary' counts as an ontology, too.

 

** Bell's challenge was met and overcome as to predictive value. In doing science, 'prediction' is prioritized as the best indicator of logicality.

 

*** Newton's F=MA is as illogical as science gets, as Goethe wrote as much. It's a tautology, since it was only in 1900 with Planck that the left  side of the equation (F) acquired an independently measurable value. Otherwise, for 200 years all you were saying was that 'M times A equals a given output of unknown content.

 

Ditto, even today when 'gravity' is calculated either by GR or the classical Newtonian. 

 

My point here us that since no science ever has nor ever will meet the complete demands of formal logic, to ontologize logic is to reject science. To this end, i'll use another Chalkboard Term that's used to assess ontological claims: coherence. Are we better off tossing science out or not?

 

**** It's been fairly well run into the ground that the advent of Bacon's "New Method" superseded Aristotelian logic as a foundation of doing science. The experimental method questions A-ness (is A really 'A'?) by virtue of rigging up simulacra to test for 'A'. science uses 'hypotheses' to say, "Our conjecture is that A might be 'A'.

 

In other words, we do science because what we want to know isn't self-evident--and because the material word appears to be contradictory. To say it really, really isn't in a metaphysical sort of way because 'I'm an O-ist and that's what we believe' falls miserably short of predicting what, after scientific investigation, we will find this (non-contradictory) reality to be. 

 

My suggestion here is that claims of metaphysical consistency, while interesting, have nothing to do with science--ostensibly concerned, qua Aristotle, with how things work and capacities. For example, the Newtonian F=MA is extremely important because, although tautological in structure, nevertheless reveals a lot about 'force', or capacity to do work, 'energy' etc.

 

***** In any case Aristotle himself devised logic as a process of mental ordering and organizing--a means to an end, as it were. It's the mental glue that holds together his investigation of The Four Causes.

 

Actually, then, it was certain Scholastics who converted logic into the primary standard, or 'ontology'. Therefore, Rand seems to be a modern continuation of the scholastic tradition!

 

Lastly, of course, your comments on 'equations' belabor the point that since much of what we want to know is not available to the senses, we use math. But even if we could see particles of quanta and their waves, we would still want to count them, measure the wave, and do the standard calculus of speed and direction.

 

AH

Edited January 15, 2015 by andie holland

[Ilya Startsev]

From 1905 onwards,  discreet sets of experiments have demonstrated that a photon is both a particle and a wave. But since the expetriments don't talk to each other (incommensurate math, for one), no, you can't say that it's a particle inside of a wave.

 

No photons do not have pre-set opposite spins. This is precisely where EPR was proven wrong. Aspect demonstrated that he following photon during an emission will exhibit opposite spin than that of its precedent--which was polarized after emission.

 

The confusion is over these terms:

1. particle,
2. wave,
3. field.

To you they are all the same and you are calling them a quantum. To me, they are different. A particle has dimension 0, a wave has dimension 1, a field has dimension 2. You mix them all as if they have the same dimensions! Your mathematics is telling you that a particle has a wavelength, therefore it is a wave. But a wavelength is a mathematical property, not an actual thing/energy. Then you say that in the distance of the same wavelength there are two fields, an electric and a magnetic one. That makes it a three-dimensional particle! Of course, if you like the string theory, you'd say that there are even more than three dimensions a single particle can have. And yet we know that particles move in one direction!

 

Peikoff indicates in chapter 1 of OPAR:

An entity may be said to have a cause only if it is the kind of entity that is noneternal; and then what one actually explains causally is a process, the fact of its coming into being or another thing's passing away. Action is the crux of the law of cause and effect: it is action that is caused—by entities.

I would extend this principle to apply to an entity which goes through a process and emerges as another entity as well as you touch upon in your next section here.

 

Excellent quote! This needs to be formalized into a law.

 

I was not trying to mix. I was trying to equate.

 

Plenum may be analogous to a wave, but they are not equal. I've quit using the anti-concept of void.

 

I dont know what article you are referring to but I am speaking of the article you quoted from on "epagoge". I have a pdf which I searched and it says ' "bacon" not found'..... What made you think what you quoted made Aristotle contra Bacon on induction?

 

Plasmatic, I referred to "epagoge" article since that's the one I've read provided your link. It's only available in pdf as an image without searchable text, so that's why you did not find the name. I've skimmed it and found Bacon twice as in "Baconian" on page 346 and in a note on p. 371. The article on Bacon from wikipedia said that he "has been called the father of empiricism," so I automatically assumed that "modern notions of induction," involving the misinterpretation of Aristotelian induction, are Baconian.

[dream_weaver]

He is discussing the law of causality in that "Excellent quote!", as you put it.

 

It is void that I find non-A synonymous with. I don't think that is necessary applicable to a validation of any aspects of QM. A familiarity with induction would be, as well as a grasp of validating the concepts required to discuss the subject in any meaningful terminology.

 

That being said, I think Andie pretty much hit the nail on the head when he said:

An alternative definition would be what Aristotle cooked up: Identity is a logical guidepost that's used for thinking clearly and getting things right--correct speech, as it were.

 

A summary from: Rice-sized laser, powered one electron at a time, bodes well for quantum computing

Researchers have built a rice grain-sized microwave laser, or 'maser,' powered by single electrons that demonstrates the fundamental interactions between light and moving electrons. It is a major step toward building quantum-computing systems out of semiconductor materials.

 

Meanwhile, in spite of the philosophical mess Harriman outlined, quantum computing moves another incremental step. It reminds me of American ingenuity plodding forward in spite of the shackles imposed by government regulations.

Edited January 16, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Ilya Startsev]

He is discussing the law of causality in that "Excellent quote!", as you put it.

 

It is void that I find non-A synonymous with. I don't think that is necessary applicable to a validation of any aspects of QM. A familiarity with induction would be, as well as a grasp of validating the concepts required to discuss the subject in any meaningful terminology.

 

That being said, I think Andie pretty much hit the nail on the head when he said:

An alternative definition would be what Aristotle cooked up: Identity is a logical guidepost that's used for thinking clearly and getting things right--correct speech, as it were.

 

A summary from: Rice-sized laser, powered one electron at a time, bodes well for quantum computing

Researchers have built a rice grain-sized microwave laser, or 'maser,' powered by single electrons that demonstrates the fundamental interactions between light and moving electrons. It is a major step toward building quantum-computing systems out of semiconductor materials.

 

Meanwhile, in spite of the philosophical mess Harriman outlined, quantum computing moves another incremental step. It reminds me of American ingenuity plodding forward in spite of the shackles imposed by government regulations.

 

The law of causality is about process, and I am talking about the end points of that process, the identities.

Non-A means something is not something else. You should purge the void you keep referring to from your mind. There is no such thing. Space is filled with matter or energy.

Qubits use three valued logic: 0, 1, and 0/1, or indeterminate. Does the law of causality, as you understand it, fit here?

[Plasmatic]

Ilya said:

Plasmatic, I referred to "epagoge" article since that's the one I've read provided your link. It's only available in pdf as an image without searchable text, so that's why you did not find the name. I've skimmed it and found Bacon twice as in "Baconian" on page 346 and in a note on p. 371. The article on Bacon from wikipedia said that he "has been called the father of empiricism," so I automatically assumed that "modern notions of induction," involving the misinterpretation of Aristotelian induction, are Baconian.

Ah, I didn't know that PDF's could do that. Thank's for that info. McCaskey explains why Baconian induction is Aristotelian...

[dream_weaver]

The law of causality is about process, and I am talking about the end points of that process, the identities.

Non-A means something is not something else. You should purge the void you keep referring to from your mind. There is no such thing. Space is filled with matter or energy.

Qubits use three valued logic: 0, 1, and 0/1, or indeterminate. Does the law of causality, as you understand it, fit here?

Let's just say, the law of causality, as I understand it, could aid you in getting to that understanding.

 

That harkens back to Peikoff's "Action is the crux of the law of cause and effect: it is action that is caused—by entities." while you insist that the law of causality is about process. Do you view these as one in the same?

[Ilya Startsev]

Let's just say, the law of causality, as I understand it, could aid you in getting to that understanding.

 

That harkens back to Peikoff's "Action is the crux of the law of cause and effect: it is action that is caused—by entities." while you insist that the law of causality is about process. Do you view these as one in the same?

 

I understand causality as self-causality (i.e., becoming). Does that answer your question?

[Ilya Startsev]

Here is my philosophical reformulation of my comprehension of QM:

• Verb "is" as in Existence is Identity, everything is something:
  • Field is Particle; Field is Wave
  • Particle is Quantum; Particle is Energy
  • Wave is Quantum; Wave is Energy
• Verb "is" as in non-Identity is Identity, non-something is something:
  • Quantum/Energy is Particle
  • Quantum/Energy is Wave
  • Particle/Wave is Field
  • Edit: two additional:
    • Energy is Quantum
    • Wave is Particle

Andie, please confirm whether this is more in agreement with QM (as you see it) than I had previously.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Ilya Startsev

[andie holland]

The confusion is over these terms:

1. particle,
2. wave,
3. field.

To you they are all the same and you are calling them a quantum. To me, they are different. A particle has dimension 0, a wave has dimension 1, a field has dimension 2. You mix them all as if they have the same dimensions! Your mathematics is telling you that a particle has a wavelength, therefore it is a wave. But a wavelength is a mathematical property, not an actual thing/energy. Then you say that in the distance of the same wavelength there are two fields, an electric and a magnetic one. That makes it a three-dimensional particle! Of course, if you like the string theory, you'd say that there are even more than three dimensions a single particle can have. And yet we know that particles move in one direction!

 

 

Excellent quote! This needs to be formalized into a law.

 

 

Plenum may be analogous to a wave, but they are not equal. I've quit using the anti-concept of void.

 

 

Plasmatic, I referred to "epagoge" article since that's the one I've read provided your link. It's only available in pdf as an image without searchable text, so that's why you did not find the name. I've skimmed it and found Bacon twice as in "Baconian" on page 346 and in a note on p. 371. The article on Bacon from wikipedia said that he "has been called the father of empiricism," so I automatically assumed that "modern notions of induction," involving the misinterpretation of Aristotelian induction, are Baconian.

Classically, 'quantum' refers to a single photon as a particle with a defined level of energy, written as h-slash at its lowest level. Photons were proven to behave like particles by Einstein and Compton, in separate experiments.

 

Heisenberg wrote the first matrix as to where particles might be within a given 'field'--defined as the limma of the matrix itself.

 

Later, Wigner wrote the matrix which describes general diffusion. Much later (1945), Heisenberg wrote the matrix to describe general scattering. Interestingly enough, he was 'spozed t be building the bomb for Hitler...another story....

 

When Feynman finally superseded the matrix model as a spacetime container of particles, he 'flipped the notion as to what a matrix was into a 'field of potentialities'. In other words, particles don't as much travel through a given spacetime as appear as a manifestation  of the spacetime's potentials. 

 

Now this, obviously brought the conceptual nature of QM closer to Gen Rel, a fact also noted by Landau, in Karkov--during Stalinism, which got his work appropriately 'denounced'...another story...

 

Now back to Feynman: spacetime potentials serve as both the basis for QED and his own 'path integral summation method', which is simply far easier to do than The Heisenberg. What this also means is that space/field is never empty, and moving particles are always bouncing against something. 

 

The measured effect of these collisions is the 'the field' itself, because that's all we know it to be on a 'phenomenal' level (Landau's term!). hence the nerdy Feyman diagram t-shirts long before my birth in '1990.

 

'Wave' has entirely another story, beginning with Schrodinger and proceeding to wave-interference patterns on projected screens. Both 'infinity' and negative solution, 'backwards in time' symbols are present in his equation. In this sense, waves are said to create its own field--or rather, the 'field' is the wave itself.

 

The advantage to this approach is explaining the existence of quanta in deep space and the formation of helium as negative/positive h-bonding

 

The disadvantage is that particle-math has resolved the issue of deep space by extending the matrix (Weyl) and also offering far-easier math for elementary particle stuff--eg Weinberg's 'Electroweak force.

 

Otherwise, geometric issues more of less come down to accommodating various angular momentums within a format of Differentlal Geometry-- Lie 2,3's in particular--but let's not forget Lisi's 'Lie-8 'Theory of Everything!

 

AH

[andie holland]

Here is my philosophical reformulation of my comprehension of QM:

• Verb "is" as in Existence is Identity, everything is something:
  • Field is Particle; Field is Wave
  • Particle is Quantum; Particle is Energy
  • Wave is Quantum; Wave is Energy
• Verb "is" as in non-Identity is Identity, non-something is something:
  • Quantum/Energy is Particle
  • Quantum/Energy is Wave
  • Particle/Wave is Field
  • Edit: two additional:
    • Energy is Quantum
    • Wave is Particle

Andie, please confirm whether this is more in agreement with QM (as you see it) than I had previously.

According to Kraus's "Something from nothing", the vacuum state of quanta is non-A, or 'nothing' because it cannot be observed --or 'phenomenally measured', as it were in Russian.

 

Rather, it's only a mathematical object or 'padoode', as I'm entitled to say as a non-physicist lit-chick.

 

What's miraculous, then,  is the creation of a tangible, very- measurable universe that springs from this state of nothingness.

 

AH

[andie holland]

He is discussing the law of causality in that "Excellent quote!", as you put it.

 

It is void that I find non-A synonymous with. I don't think that is necessary applicable to a validation of any aspects of QM. A familiarity with induction would be, as well as a grasp of validating the concepts required to discuss the subject in any meaningful terminology.

 

That being said, I think Andie pretty much hit the nail on the head when he said:

An alternative definition would be what Aristotle cooked up: Identity is a logical guidepost that's used for thinking clearly and getting things right--correct speech, as it were.

 

A summary from: Rice-sized laser, powered one electron at a time, bodes well for quantum computing

Researchers have built a rice grain-sized microwave laser, or 'maser,' powered by single electrons that demonstrates the fundamental interactions between light and moving electrons. It is a major step toward building quantum-computing systems out of semiconductor materials.

 

Meanwhile, in spite of the philosophical mess Harriman outlined, quantum computing moves another incremental step. It reminds me of American ingenuity plodding forward in spite of the shackles imposed by government regulations.

I'm a gurl, born 'Andrea', and not 'Andrew'. 'Just noticed that the 'introduction section', which i neglected to peruse, defaults to 'male' as a gender.

 

Otherwise, please note that GMR, which enables us to have small computers, is a joint Franco-German Gov-research project.

 

AH

[New Buddha]

Here is my philosophical reformulation of my comprehension of QM:

• Verb "is"....

Ilya,

You might find this link interesting regarding the use of the word 'is'.

Edited January 17, 2015 by New Buddha

[dream_weaver]

I understand causality as self-causality (i.e., becoming). Does that answer your question?

Yes it does, in an obfuscating way.

 

[dream_weaver]

I'm a gurl, born 'Andrea', and not 'Andrew'. 'Just noticed that the 'introduction section', which i neglected to peruse, defaults to 'male' as a gender.

 

Otherwise, please note that GMR, which enables us to have small computers, is a joint Franco-German Gov-research project.

 

AH

Which doesn't negate the fact that rationality can make incremental steps even in the shadows of opposition. Galileo probably wasn't the first, and certainly won't be the last.

[Ilya Startsev]

According to Kraus's "Something from nothing", the vacuum state of quanta is non-A, or 'nothing' because it cannot be observed --or 'phenomenally measured', as it were in Russian.

 

Rather, it's only a mathematical object or 'padoode', as I'm entitled to say as a non-physicist lit-chick.

 

What's miraculous, then,  is the creation of a tangible, very- measurable universe that springs from this state of nothingness.

 

AH

 

First, I did not mention "vacuum" in my reformulation. Second, you did not answer my question.

Edit: here I'll put it more directly:

Andie, does this agree more with QM than before?

 

Ilya,

You might find this link interesting regarding the use of the word 'is'.

 

The verb "is" is used in Rand's sense as a mix of existence and identity based on context.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

Yes it does, in an obfuscating way.

 

 

Obfuscating, huh? Well, here is something that is not obfuscating to you, then:

The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. The units of the concept “consciousness” are every state or process of awareness that one experiences, has ever experienced or will ever experience (as well as similar units, a similar faculty, which one infers in other living entities). The measurements omitted from axiomatic concepts are all the measurements of all the existents they subsume; what is retained, metaphysically, is only a fundamental fact; what is retained, epistemologically, is only one category of measurement, omitting its particulars: time—i.e., the fundamental fact is retained independent of any particular moment of awareness (Rand, ITOE, Ch. 6).

 

And Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "Eternity as timelessness, and eternity as everlastingness, have been distinguished."

 

So, my question is: Is the eternity of existence timeless or everlasting?

[dream_weaver]

So, my question is: Is the eternity of existence timeless or everlasting?

That would depend on the context. Part of my understanding of time comes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

 

On this basis, if one is considering the notion of time as it relates to existence, it would be considered as timeless, or outside of time. When considering something within the context of existence the term everlasting could be applied. This would extend to that "excellent quote" what was implied as "an eternal entity" when it stated: "An entity may be said to have a cause only if it is the kind of entity that is noneternal."

Edited January 18, 2015 by dream_weaver