The essence of the scientific method is that it is based on being able to repeat results. If you get the same results every time you do the same operation, and when anyone else who repeats it get the same result, you can safely conclude that you have a scientific explanation. But quantum mechanics says no, you have to assume everything happens with a probability but not with a 100% certainty. It's always statistical only. The two views are not compatible. Now that gives us a problem, because QM breaks science. Yet physicists tell us that QM is real. Basically they are implying we cannot trust science anymore. I realized this tonight when I realized that quantum connectivity might mean that sympathetic magic might have a real basis, but would be very hard to prove as it would be probabilistic in operation. Holy smoke. Might we want to rethink parts of old-time magic after all? Something to ponder.
Comments (45)
sorted by:
There can't be any magic, only processes we don't understand yet.
QM is a theory to explain some results we observe. Probability and outcome distribution is a result too. They perfectly and repeatably correlate with initial conditions.
You can't predict exact result of coin throw not because it is magic or fundamentally unpredictable, but because you can't measure and calculate all factors that influence the result. So you have a theory that throwing coin give you 50/50 probability of one or another outcome. Good enough to deal with real coin throwing. Same is QM. It gives results good enough to deal with most quantum effects for real world purposes.
When mechanisms that make quantum things works would be discovered, then QM will be replaced with something better.
QM is in no way a "final truth" or a dogma, just good enough theory for the current level of knowledge and technology.
The problem is not in QM or science. The problem is that science today is totally controlled by those who don't want or need any scientific and technology progress.
Magic, if it exists, is just a technology we are not aware about yet. Things get complicated because those who practicise magic don't want to allow honest scientific research on things they declare to be able to do. Try to talk about honest scientific experiments and research with anyone who declare himself able to use magic. It is always hilarious and you always will be guilty in something in the end of conversation.
Magic is a thousands year old theory with a base postulate on the nature of reality and a set of intellectual skills for interacting in a world with that universal truth. Magic is reality.
The magic you're referring to is named after "real" magic. It's not Disney magic or stage magic, it's just a philosophy and model for reality that in my humble experience, is true.
You are describing some cult or religion.
To interact with reality you inevitable have to apply some forces to the real objects and interact with them somehow. So it is definitely a technology, measureable, researcheable and understandable.
If you do not interact with objects in universe, then it is impossible to really change anything in real world. You could only change things in your mind, nothing more.
If you are talking about a model of reality, then, it has to have some practical purpose. If it is practical, then you use it to interact with physical objects, and so it has to be measureable and researcheable. If it is just a way to keep your mind in order, then it is perfectly OK and even useful, but it just can't change anything in reality, it will be you who do it by usual means of course without any magic at all.
I see nothing bad in religions or beliefs at all, but they have nothing to do with reality. They are about choosing ways to live and do things. But you still do things using some technology, not your belief. Even if some, say, prayer from your religion definitely and proveably works, then there is some researcheable way it apply forces to the objects in universe.
Every action starts with a thought...
Yes and no. I would say every action is a result of somebody's thought, eventually, but not necessary directly. Gasoline flash in cylinder of your car started by a spark, but eventually it is because you decided to go shopping.
It sounds like you have very fixed beliefs, have not explored or questioned otherwise, and nothing I say will change that.
If you are Russian, you should look into your own governments investments in psi and remote viewing. They sure seem to believe it.
Believing in technology is the worst mistake you could make.
Psi and remote viewing was scientifically studied to find out is it real, how it works and if it could be used for practical purposes.
There is a subtle difference. In the "classical" case, if we were to somehow hypothetically know the initial conditions to enough accuracy, we could predict the result. But bell's theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) and the experimentally observed inequalities show that there are no "local hidden variables" that one could measure to determine the exact outcome in a quantum experiment. So either we are misunderstanding the problem and interpreting the bell experiments incorrectly (which I think is a definite possibility) or quantum behavior is just intrinsically different from macroscopic behavior in that we cannot absolutely predict anything.
Then you could get into David Bohm's ideas about the implicate and explicate orders of reality, and how perhaps there are "global hidden variables" that would determine the outcome of a quantum experiment that lie within an "implicate" order that is unseen to our "explicate" order of effects from this deeper order of reality.
You can't prove absence.
We just don't know mechanism behind entaglement. Mostly because it could ruin Einshten bullshit about speed of light as maximum possible speed of anything. There is nothing strange that those who try to keep itself in modern science trying to avoid anything that could spawn something FTL at any cost.
What if ones consent to "stand under" (understand) the suggestions by others, while ignoring to be processed within perceivable, represents MAGIC (art of influencing)?
ARTIFICIAL (suggestion) within FLUENT (perceivable)...
IMO quantum mechanics doesn't break science --- it may break a model of the universe.
Well, it may do both - but it certainly opposes the process of science, which depends on making conclusions about causality. If we cannot depend on cause and effect producing consistently reliable results, then we lack a means of reliable reasoning.
For example, with the two-slit experiment, it has been shown that we cannot predict exactly where a single photon goes. Therefore we cannot formulate a predictive equation, only a statistical one. But if we use only a statistical prediction, that result is not repeatable. This says we have to change the fundamental way we do science to include accepting different results each time we run an experiment. But that breaks ability to trust hard value predictions.
I don't view a photon a as a hard little ball.
I view it more like a boat and wake going through the water --- except the boat itself is a tangled wave.
When you "destroy" a particle ---- you just untangle the wave.
It's a wave packet with a spread, but the thing is, experiments with the two-slit mechanism provably show that while single photons end up at statistically random positions in the target plane, streams over time of single photons repeatably accumulate in wave patterns, and these patterns show that single photons pass through both slots and on the other side interfere with themselves.
In my old copy of Griffiths introductory book on QM, second edition figure 1-4 from a Hitachi CRL experiment clearly shows the single-photon behavior weirdness. The photons are not little hard balls, but they are single objects, where each object is a wave packet, which is a fuzzy little ball-ish thing.
Most of what goes into a computer is to control and regulate that statistical process aka raw energy.
If it werent for these quirks, we wouldnt have the technology that we do now.
Just because something is unpredictable by its very nature doesnt make it impossible to understand, just harder. It's neat how math can model pretty much everything by the way, thats why I say it really is a universal language.
Any technology built with this would certainly seem like magic to someone who didnt understand how it works. Im sure having a smart phone would have got you burned as a witch 400 years ago.
I also believe that at the end stage of evolution, like many others do, that you can control these processes with your mind, instead of having to use technology to do it. Humans are likely still billions of years away from this happening haha. The internet interestingly enough seems to be a rudimentary form of the ability to speak telepathically.
People are proably tired of me bring this up, but I cant look at a bubble chamber, where they smash particles together to break them apart and not think how there has to be some underlying structure on a scale so tiny we cant see it. As above, so below.
Does this disprove god? If anything it strengthens the case for him/her.
I remember hearing they ran very simple experiments that clearly showed human consciousness could affect the quantum mechanical process of nuclear decay. IIRC, it was even retrocausal, working backwards in time.
I'm a little fuzzy on the details, because in the meantime I found out we live in a world where the vast majority of people could not give a fuck about the nature of reality, being only concerned with whether Netflix, their phones and EBT cards work. It seemed like that state of affairs was more immediately pertinent to understanding the reality we live in.
In the history of science, every maybe 50 to 100 years we undergo big changes in our models of reality. For example, in classical physics roughly 90 years ago they discovered that accepted theory couldn't explain some key things. Then quantum mechanics came along and overturned models and theory and we advanced. In chemistry less than a century ago they didn't even know about neutrons in atoms! Right now we have plenty of open areas in physics, controversy over string theory, dark matter, weirdnesses in quantum mechanics. This all says we don't truly understand the universe and there are still going to be surprises. A century from now we will be much more advanced, and able to deal with the climate in far better ways; the current bullshit about banning gas cars will be seen as stupid, maybe even unnecessary change to society and the economies by political morons and powerhungry elite.
a) if balance represents cause (action); then choice represents retro (reaction).
b) if balance represents even; then choice represents odds.
What do you mean by magic? Things outside our plane of existence only seem like magic because we cannot grasp it within our dimensional constraints.
Yeah, quite possible. For example, if QM is more than three dimensional, it might be able to do things we cannot yet comprehend. Quantum connectivity implies some things happen instantaneously as far as our 3D view is concerned. But if QM operates also in a 4th dimension, that can explain such connection. 'Magic', parts of old fashioned primitive notions might well have bases in super science, things we do not yet understand properly. That doesn't mean the old mysticism and supernatural theories are correct, it just means our science views have holes in them.
What if existing implies as things inside (matter) of outside (immaterial) aka as partials at center of surrounding whole?
Ones consent to artificial influence by others (suggestion aka magic) tempts one to believe in "because" (being cause); while ignoring to be effect (growth) within cause (loss).
How constraint can "free" will of choice be? What if ones consent to the suggested choices by others tempts one to restraint ones free will of choice; hence binding it to others; which then wield a chain of command?
No it doesn't.
Many fields of natural sciences are already transferring to quantum maths.
The issue is doing stochastic processes with waveform functions and not deterministic continuous functions.
It's all doable and is being done in many fields already.
All you get is a range of outcomes, and still repeatability. In fact, this models the real world more accurately than simplistic deterministic models.
If there was no (stochastic, modellable) repeatability, you couldn't design, engineer, build and utilize quantum computers for computing, but we can.
Would you advocate doing medical science based on probability of death from a treatment method, or upon certainty that it will not harm? "Mr. Smith, there is a probability of 20% you will die from this hangnail treatment, 34 percent you will be crippled for life!"
Yes I would, because that's how the cookie crumbles.
People should be given REAL STATS on the treatment options success rate based on a large enough representative sample (i.e. telling them the truth).
AFTER THAT, they should be given as much belief support and good bedside manners as required, to make their chosen treatment plan work (i.e. harnessing the power of placebo).
The current system does exactly opposite: likes about the treatments and gives you a nocebo ("you're gonna die...")
It's 100% ass-backwards.
Lets keep it simple.
Thats impossible and forces we don't understand.
Thats an unacceptable explanation. You can have one or the other. Not both.
What if it only happened 99% of the time?
The way it works in science research is, they look for one of a couple of things:
So science is not broken.
This uncertainty factor is feared and revered by the Occult as the unpredictable 'Fool' that levels in an instant. The zero card of the tarot. aka The Joker, The Wild Card et al. This is why The Joker is such a predominant meme in Batman for example. The dark side of the Dark Lord. Uncontrollable.
As such, it exists as a hidden potential in every Calculation that projects.
In a couple of conversations about the nature of cognition, with a head of the team that formulated the so-called 'String Theory', I presented a model. I used the example of 'The Monocord', an ancient tool used by Pythagorus to teach the concept of Harmony to students. Placing the plucked String as 'that which is sensed"....the eardrum as 'That which senses'.....and the invisible force that 'brings them together in agreement'. I dubbed this as 'Magic' rather than its more proper term 'spirit/force'....to allow it to be 'seen'. So cognition can be seen as three-in-one, String, Drum or Magic....depending on your perspective. This was taken and used, changing the name of String Theory to 'String/Drum/Magic' theory "depending on your perspective", stealing the idea that I'd dummied down for acceptance.
M as Spirit makes the 'equation' work.....'magic' does not. In fact, it became a time baum of truth that sabotaged the String Theorist magicians' tricky attempts to create a world where simultaneously occurring realities exist in real time.
Such is only the case only on a dimensional level. (micro/macro)
Magic keeps information invisible from the audience. Magick does the same Spirit informs, fulfills, creates, sustains and frees the soul from addiction to the dualistic attraction/repulsion that encodes magic and is symbolized by the black/white checkered floor. For the devil goes 'to and fro' upon the earth and the profane require signs. Magic to the rescue.
a) SCIENCE (Latin scio; to know) + METHOD (Latin methodus; Gr. with, and way)...aka able to perceive (scio) while alive within (meta) way of being moved from inception towards death (hodos).
b) base of being able (reaction) implies enabling (action).
c) different repetitions (life) within same result (inception towards death).
d) the trick...using the scientific method to suggest what "is" tempts one (meta) to ignore what (hodos) "was" perceivable (scio) before any suggestion could be shaped.
a) difference (life) within sameness (inception towards death) can only grow comprehension of sameness; not actually perceive it aka while being alive; one cannot perceive ones inception or death.
b) others suggest sameness (equality) to tempt one to ignore or even attack differences (diversity)...hence being domesticated to behave "alike".
c) only within ongoing -TION (action) can one temporary OPERA (reactionary effort)...
d) consider the following contradiction: RESULT; verb - "to spring forward" + RESULT; noun - "to leap back... https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=result
What's the difference between being the reacting "verb" choosing to spring forwards or choosing to consent to a suggested "noun", while leaping backwards? Can one discern that?
Being implies unfolding (temporary growth of life) within conclusion (ongoing loss through process of dying)...others suggest SAFE (free from danger) as the inversion of being free within danger aka free will of choice within the balance (momentum) of motion.
Being implies variable (choice) within static (balance) of motion.
a) trust represents ones consent to the suggestions by others...scientism (science); nihilism (can not) and pluralism (we).
b) science (scio; knowledge; perceivable) isn't trust based; one (singular) cannot be plural (we) and everything perceivable implies that one can perceive.
a) try responding (re) by thinking as partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable)...instead of reasoning over the suggestions by others, like "old-time"
b) MAGIC (art of influencing) from root MAGH (to be able)...is one able to discern between artificial (suggested information) and natural (perceivable inspiration)...if so; then utilizing former to tempt others to ignore latter represents magic.
Sleight of hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouLXZuh5O6Q ("the moment I gazed into your eyes...you made me believe in magic")
No, it's to verify predictions through experiments.
So if the prediction is "there will be a different result each time", the experiment would then be used to confirm it.
Did yiu seriously think you could just "break" science through an uninformed forum post?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
According to you, predicting that a dice doesn't always show the same number would be impossible to do in a scientific setting.
You think that probability calculations are impossible or unscientific?
Predicting that an outcome will be uncertain may be a valid model but is hardly useful since the causality is random.
I predict that you will spout blather but I cannot be certain what you will spout. It may be a function of how many empty open cans of Bud Light are lying on your floor.
Would you advance medicine by promoting a vaccine whose effect is random, ranging from harmless to killing the recipient? Hardly scientific.
This is where probabilities are important. If it's much more probable to die of the infection than from the vaccine, it's advisable to use the vaccine in case if a highly infectious disease.
Do you understand what I wrote there? Do you find vaccines only acceptable if they are completely harmless?
Can you actually make a point? Can you in your own words summarise the Scientific Method?
"Do you find vaccines only acceptable if they are completely harmless?"
Thanks for declaring your position on the left.
BTW, Eisenhorn's Reddit account is IronEagleV. Pretty sure. Even on Reddit he gets pretty roundly mocked. LOL
thank you, X. It does me good to know that.
That statement makes no sense. What do you mean?
Don't play games with me.