Until these results are verified and go through peer review they are suspect. Look what happened with cold fusion, and innumerable other cases.
Two pages ago in this thread I posted http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html in reference to another result supposedly supporting Sheldrake. I'm willing to bet that this applies just as well to the latest experiment you are quoting here.
Two pages ago in this thread I posted http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html in reference to another result supposedly supporting Sheldrake. I'm willing to bet that this applies just as well to the latest experiment you are quoting here.
+1 Bill!
I use Powertabs, it makes learning new tunes about a million times easier. And Powertabs is the result of other guitarists learning before me.
But anyway...
I have a paranormal activity I can proove to Randi, because, you see, my house is eternally dammed.
I believe Satan himself visits Earth through a portal located somewhere within this very building. Sometimes a few times a day.
I can proove this by way of a strange smell. The smell is so foul, so disgusting, unimaginable and bowl churning that it can only be he, the unspeakable evil.
Usually I don't see the gateway from Hell forming, but it often coincides with Kitty visiting her tray, and, oddly enough, eminates from the same point in space time.
Perhaps he is invisible? I'm not sure.
I put this forth, as my conclusive proof of Satan's existence.
I use Powertabs, it makes learning new tunes about a million times easier. And Powertabs is the result of other guitarists learning before me.
But anyway...
I have a paranormal activity I can proove to Randi, because, you see, my house is eternally dammed.
I believe Satan himself visits Earth through a portal located somewhere within this very building. Sometimes a few times a day.
I can proove this by way of a strange smell. The smell is so foul, so disgusting, unimaginable and bowl churning that it can only be he, the unspeakable evil.
Usually I don't see the gateway from Hell forming, but it often coincides with Kitty visiting her tray, and, oddly enough, eminates from the same point in space time.
Perhaps he is invisible? I'm not sure.
I put this forth, as my conclusive proof of Satan's existence.
Back to serious discussion.
I found Mohrhoff's website, which gives a better overview than the papers. I'd like to discuss his interpretation, along with the general criticism against this category of interpretations by Marchildon.
janneman, where'd you disappear to? Did we scare you away from this thread?
I found Mohrhoff's website, which gives a better overview than the papers. I'd like to discuss his interpretation, along with the general criticism against this category of interpretations by Marchildon.
janneman, where'd you disappear to? Did we scare you away from this thread?
Prune, I glanced at the websites you cite. They contain mucho information. Can you describe in a nutshell the dispute or question you want to discuss?
Morhoff's views seem to me somewhat Bohmian in character---wholistic and based, at some level, on an ontological persepective. I wasn't able, by quick review, to discern Marchildon's essential view.
Here's one question that came to mind reading Morhoff's overview. At page 1 of his Outline, he characterises Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a "fuzziness principle." He then says, "What is the proper (i.e., mathematically rigorous and philosophical sound) way of describing the objective fuzziness of the quantum world? It is to assign objective probabilities to the possible outcomes of measurements." Fair enough. Morhoff then inserts into his discussion a picture, saying, "Take a look at these cloudlike images ..." and posts the picture.
At this point in his analysis I stopped reading (except to skim), because I sensed certain assumptions in his language I do not share. The picture he posts visually represents the probability an electron or proton being found within a given probability distribution represented by the fuzzy electron or proton space. But what is an electron, and what does it mean when he says "take a look" at these cloudlike "images"? We've never seen an electron, and we likely never will. Moreover, the notion of "seeing" might be inappropriate when speaking of electrons: electrons, or whatever attributes, elements or functions constitute what we describe as "electrons," exist at the level at which the basis of sight operates, and the basis of sight cannot be seen. A qualitative leap has occurred passing into the realm of the "small." Sight is a this-level (call it "classical") phenomenon. If sight is inappropriate---cannot be applied---to the quantum realm, perhaps everything "this-level" ("classical") cannot be applied to the quantum level.
One important this-level notion is causation. Assume for a moment that causation, like sight, does not apply in the quantum realm. Where does that assumption leave you in respect of the notion of probability? In the same manner that things we cannot see---particles (photon, electron, whatever)---form the basis of sight, so too, perhaps, does that which we call probability form the basis of causation. It would follow that in the same fashion that the notion of "particle" must be shorn of this-level qualities ("thingness" or "particleness" are two qualities pertinent to "sight"), so too would the notion of "probability" need to be shorn of anything resembling causation, for probability would be the basis of causation. Probability, in this sense, would then be viewed as non-causal, or a-causal, and the "things" or "particles" to which this notion of probability would apply would be shorn of causal happening.
My point, here, is that the term "probability" implies not just a whiff of the notion of causation. Perhaps discussions regarding quantum theory need to recheck its descriptive language, and assumptions residing in that language. My two cents.
Morhoff's views seem to me somewhat Bohmian in character---wholistic and based, at some level, on an ontological persepective. I wasn't able, by quick review, to discern Marchildon's essential view.
Here's one question that came to mind reading Morhoff's overview. At page 1 of his Outline, he characterises Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a "fuzziness principle." He then says, "What is the proper (i.e., mathematically rigorous and philosophical sound) way of describing the objective fuzziness of the quantum world? It is to assign objective probabilities to the possible outcomes of measurements." Fair enough. Morhoff then inserts into his discussion a picture, saying, "Take a look at these cloudlike images ..." and posts the picture.
At this point in his analysis I stopped reading (except to skim), because I sensed certain assumptions in his language I do not share. The picture he posts visually represents the probability an electron or proton being found within a given probability distribution represented by the fuzzy electron or proton space. But what is an electron, and what does it mean when he says "take a look" at these cloudlike "images"? We've never seen an electron, and we likely never will. Moreover, the notion of "seeing" might be inappropriate when speaking of electrons: electrons, or whatever attributes, elements or functions constitute what we describe as "electrons," exist at the level at which the basis of sight operates, and the basis of sight cannot be seen. A qualitative leap has occurred passing into the realm of the "small." Sight is a this-level (call it "classical") phenomenon. If sight is inappropriate---cannot be applied---to the quantum realm, perhaps everything "this-level" ("classical") cannot be applied to the quantum level.
One important this-level notion is causation. Assume for a moment that causation, like sight, does not apply in the quantum realm. Where does that assumption leave you in respect of the notion of probability? In the same manner that things we cannot see---particles (photon, electron, whatever)---form the basis of sight, so too, perhaps, does that which we call probability form the basis of causation. It would follow that in the same fashion that the notion of "particle" must be shorn of this-level qualities ("thingness" or "particleness" are two qualities pertinent to "sight"), so too would the notion of "probability" need to be shorn of anything resembling causation, for probability would be the basis of causation. Probability, in this sense, would then be viewed as non-causal, or a-causal, and the "things" or "particles" to which this notion of probability would apply would be shorn of causal happening.
My point, here, is that the term "probability" implies not just a whiff of the notion of causation. Perhaps discussions regarding quantum theory need to recheck its descriptive language, and assumptions residing in that language. My two cents.
Of course. But he's not implying one can see an electron -- the picture is just a conceptual diagram.
What applies is what the math says.
Regarding the rest of your comment, I don't agree that probability implies causation. For example, the justification of Ockham's razor is probabilistic/statistical (infinitely more complex hypotheses that fit known data than simpler ones, thus probability is that the simpler is correct and the complex ones are what is called overfitting the data and will fail to generalize to new data). Another example is entropy. Why does it increase? Consider the entropy at a given point in the dimension of time. Now, the number of possible states with higher entropy are far more than those with lower entropy. Thus, choosing another point in time at random will probably have higher entropy. (An aside: This leaves the issue of why entropy is increasing in what we perceive as forward in time. First, it indicates that at the endpoint we call the beginning of the big bang, entropy was low -- that is why it's increasing in one direction. Second, it means there is some reason why we perceive time in the direction of increasing entropy. From physics and information theory we know the connection between entropy and information content. It has been proposed that we perceive time going forward because at points in time where we have more memories, we must also have more entropy. In neither of these two cases is the notion of causation needed.)
In Mohrhoff's interpretation, counterfactuals are assigned objective probabilities in whos calculation not just past/present, but also future facts are taken into account. Also, to quote a Marchildon paper, according to Mohrhoff's view "no unmeasured observable of no individual system whatsoever has a true value in the interval between pre- and postselection." Mohrhoff sees quantum theory not as a direct model of reality, but as the information we can know about it, a probability algorithm for assigning abovesaid values.
The website info seems more designed for the layman; you'd do much better to read the paper describing his interpretation:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9903051
Also check out the other one I mentioned already several times in this thread. I don't feel I could explain here as well as the papers what precisely Mohrhoff means by 'facts' as used in the previous paragraph.
By the way, I contacted Mohrhoff to ask him what he thinks of how Damasio's neurobiological account of consciosness fits in the argument between him and Stapp. Stapp sees Damasio's view as supporting his interpretation, which directly involves consciousness (although Damasio doesn't at all involve QM in his discussion). Mohrhoff's reply was pretty much what I expected -- his interpretation is trivially compatible with Damasio's consciousness theory because there is no overlap.
Prune said:
If Mohrhoff says what you say he says, he skips over the problem I touched on by setting up a straw man called direct modelling. In saying quantum theory is information we can know about reality, and not a direct model of reality, what, in that understanding, is a "direct model"? No answer can be given because the concept is evidently empty because reality evidently cannot be directly modeled. Removing the straw man from his statement, the statement reduces to:
A probability algorithm for assigning values is a probability algorith for assigning values.
I see a hint of redundancy there, and no real suggestion of what, or what does not, actually occur at the quantum level, whether probablistic or non-probablistic.
Randi is at it again
The latest from J. Randi. This time re:$485 potentiometer knobs.
http://www.randi.org/jr/123104my.html#8
The original item randi references:
Silver Rock Signature Knob: Reference Audio Mods
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C
Be sure to check out the price on the pots!
The latest from J. Randi. This time re:$485 potentiometer knobs.
http://www.randi.org/jr/123104my.html#8
The original item randi references:
Silver Rock Signature Knob: Reference Audio Mods
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C
Be sure to check out the price on the pots!
The pointer on the knob acts as a vibration antenna. Visualize it wiggling. It's like a little pecker swaying in the wind.
For owners of either knob, my new company "Knob Mods" will remove the pointer and inset a dot of teak in the face of the knob. Introductory price is $100 for the first 1000 customers. PayPal accepted.
Thank you for your attention.
For owners of either knob, my new company "Knob Mods" will remove the pointer and inset a dot of teak in the face of the knob. Introductory price is $100 for the first 1000 customers. PayPal accepted.
Thank you for your attention.
Bump again. Anyone read the latest issue of Skeptic? There's an article called Audiophoolery by one Ethan Winer (no pun intended) 'exposing' anything that wouldn't fly with the Consumer Report crowd. Like most of these skeptical analyses a mix of warranted and unwarranted statements, some inaccuracies, but mostly a string of unargued conclusions with little depth. Nothing you wouldn't have seen Stereo Review.
Look at www.ethanwiner.com. You don't have to agree with him, like him, his software, his designs or his musical taste, but just to "dis" him as in the above quote says more about the poster than about Winer.
I forgot to list this URL as well http://www.musicminusone.com/Main/Details.asp?AlbumID=536
i read his 'article'
in skeptic,
i was wondering if he was a real person
i did not dis him, only what he said(wrote)
after 27 years of building,modifiying and listening to, and through
various pieces of equipment, i don't have much enthusiasm for
people who are paid to be pro-naysayers
i can hear when things change, can you?
if not, ethans your man
and thank you for the link
steal my lunch?
http://www.santoalt.com/videos/tiger_vs_croc.php
in skeptic,
i was wondering if he was a real person
i did not dis him, only what he said(wrote)
after 27 years of building,modifiying and listening to, and through
various pieces of equipment, i don't have much enthusiasm for
people who are paid to be pro-naysayers
i can hear when things change, can you?
if not, ethans your man
and thank you for the link
steal my lunch?
http://www.santoalt.com/videos/tiger_vs_croc.php
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.