Psychics

[comma]

If particle-field duality doesn't actually exist, and we'll one day replace it with something else, that doesn't change the fact that computers and GPS satellites and particle accelerators and everything else we've built on the base of that theory works. Isn't that the whole point?

No, the point of science is knowledge. I think that's pretty clear. That's why people do it and that's what we get out of it every time. Science is what we use to justify our beliefs in truths. True justified belief is knowledge, simply put.

Things working might be the point of science to some senator who helps decide the NASA budget, but that's a limited context.

Otherwise, your presence in this thread is outstanding. I removed you from my ignore list just to read your posts here. Nice work.

[Yerushalmi]

If particle-field duality doesn't actually exist, and we'll one day replace it with something else, that doesn't change the fact that computers and GPS satellites and particle accelerators and everything else we've built on the base of that theory works. Isn't that the whole point?

No, the point of science is knowledge. I think that's pretty clear. That's why people do it and that's what we get out of it every time. Science is what we use to justify our beliefs in truths. True justified belief is knowledge, simply put.

Things working might be the point of science to some senator who helps decide the NASA budget, but that's a limited context.

Otherwise, your presence in this thread is outstanding. I removed you from my ignore list just to read your posts here. Nice work.

I don't mean that the point of science is "to make things that work". I mean that the point of having a theory is "to make accurate predictions", and that if the theory is reliable enough that we've been able to build all sorts of stuff that wouldn't work without it, then we must have done a really good job with our theory even if something (or everything) about it is wrong.


...why was I on your ignore list?

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

There is no such thing as something that "disappears when you try to analyze it with science" (and don't talk to me about the uncertainty principle, because that has reproducible results - we not only know what becomes uncertain, we can tell you in advance exactly how much of it becomes uncertain).

And of course, once you figure out the rules of something, even if it disappears and reappears under certain circumstances, you can still build a business out of it.

I think the question of whether quantum particles or fields actually are real, exists in the material sense, is a very different question than discussing the viability of the standard model. It goes beyond just the uncertainty principle. There is something more fundamental at question regarding the existence (or non-existence) of quantum particles/fields. There is a really interesting article in the August 2013 issue of Scientific American by Meinard Kuhlmann, a German Physicist and Philosopher, that explores the metaphysical state of quantum particles and the discrepancies between what we see/calculate/do, what we infer, and what actually occurs.

Preview of Article mentioned above. Sadly, not the greatest blurb. :/

The whole point of science is that we come up with a theory to describe what's going on, that theory makes predictions about what will happen under various circumstances, and when those predictions are fulfilled we consider the theory to be correct.

Is it possible that the theory is wrong in some detail? Of course. It is even possible that the entirety of our conception is wrong but merely happens to coincide with the reality in most circumstances, and the moment we find a given discrepancy the entire edifice of theory we've built over decades or centuries will collapse, and we'll have to come up with something else entirely to match the facts? It's happened before.

But even if what we're describing isn't really real, and we'll find out exactly how wrong we are some day, that doesn't change the fact that the theory works for the things it was designed to describe. If particle-field duality doesn't actually exist, and we'll one day replace it with something else, that doesn't change the fact that computers and GPS satellites and particle accelerators and everything else we've built on the base of that theory works. Isn't that the whole point?

I think you totally missed my point there. I wasn't actually criticizing the theory itself, or rather the machinations thereof, merely the assumptions and problems therein. I was taking more of a philosophical approach than a scientific one since the question at hand in this thread dealt more closely the the metaphysical issues regarding quantum mechanics than whether or not the theory works, which the standard model is pretty accurate. Nor was I arguing against the notion of paradigm shifts within science. I actually find Kuhn's work regarding paradigm shifts in science very interesting, especially concerning biases and subjectivity. However, that is a different discussion. At hand, I merely presented another argument since I felt that the comparison of uncertainty principle and psychic phenomenon was rather weak since the former is more of a problematization in measuring leading to a more probabilistic universe. The latter was more of the mystical and ineffable which cannot be measured which I think the metaphysical issue touches at more deeply. Especially given that we do not really observe the particles (yes, thank you uncertainty principle) but rather traces left behind by said particles. These traces lead us to infer a particle moving in continuous motion yet the reality of it is that the "traces" are actually discrete, series of events or impression than continuous. The inferences from the discrete impression to an actually trajectory is not necessarily correct, nor is it consistent with the standard model. Thus the problem with understanding them as quantum particles (there are other cases too, as well as cases for fields). I think this is much more related to the inability to measure psychic phenomenon and whether they really occur than simply drawing a negative parallel with the uncertainty principle. Also, I thought you might just find the article interesting.

[Mercen-X]

Three most important questions I'd ask a psychic:

What publishing company will I be with for the next four years?

What make and model of car will I own in the next two years?

And naturally...

Who is the next girl I will be having sex with?