The lunatics wanna run the asylum

[Frick]

"church" and "science" in the same phrase.

In a way you could say there are different churces in science as well. It's basicly people with a common interest gathering to talk about/learn about those interests.

 

[qubit]

In a way you could say there are different churces in science as well. It's basicly people with a common interest gathering to talk about/learn about those interests.

We might be arguing semantics here, but I don't think you can ever equate churches to science. Churches are all about religion and useless dogma and crucially, scientific ignorance. Science is just the opposite. It seeks to learn about every aspect of our universe using reason and logic.

An absolutely perfect example of science over any religion is just to look at the advanced technology all around us. No religion ever did that, only science and the effort of countless scientists, inventors, engineers and ordinary people throughout the ages. All religion does is hold us back and should be discarded. Yes, I'm an atheist.

Oops, I think we're straying into GN territory here. I'll happily discuss this with you if you want to create a GN thread and link back to it here.

 

[qamulek2]

Lunatics EVERYWHERE!!!!

TBH the lunatics are already running the asylum; those lunatics are called physicists. Physicists embrace quantum mechanics even though it has lost touch with reality.

To see why quantum mechanics does not represent reality, consider what happens in the double slit diffraction experiment. Send many photons of one wavelength into the apparatus, and on the other side you will observe a nice diffraction pattern. Turn down the intensity of the light while increasing the exposure time, and you will still see a nice diffraction pattern(once the photo is developed). Keep decreasing the intensity of the light till only one photon enters the apparatus per day, and you will still see a nice diffraction pattern so long as you expose the film for an adequate amount of time. Most people that think about how the diffraction pattern comes about will initially use common sense and think the photons interfere with each other, but this experiment shows that each photon actually interferes with itself. How is it that each photon interferes with itself and somehow decides it should have a certain probability of appearing some place? Quantum mechanics doesn't try to explain how it happens, it just states particles behave like waves until you observe them. Just as odd, Quantum mechanics says how likely it is to find a particle within a certain region, but once the particle is found, it will never tell you why it decided to appear there rather than somewhere else; for any one experiment quantum mechanics is "wrong" since it can't tell you what will happen, but on average quantum mechanics has always been right.

Something happened for any one experiment, and whatever happened should be considered reality. The problem is quantum mechanics can't say what will happen for any one experiment, so it shouldn't be considered reality. However; quantum mechanics represents the only reality we know since no one can explain what will happen for any one experiment. By embracing quantum mechanics as a theory that represents reality, I am tossing out a deeper reality that I know should exist; By rejecting the "truth", I am a lunatic.

 

[qubit]

TBH the lunatics are already running the asylum; those lunatics are called physicists. Physicists embrace quantum mechanics even though it has lost touch with reality.

To see why quantum mechanics does not represent reality, consider what happens in the double slit diffraction experiment. Send many photons of one wavelength into the apparatus, and on the other side you will observe a nice diffraction pattern. Turn down the intensity of the light while increasing the exposure time, and you will still see a nice diffraction pattern(once the photo is developed). Keep decreasing the intensity of the light till only one photon enters the apparatus per day, and you will still see a nice diffraction pattern so long as you expose the film for an adequate amount of time. Most people that think about how the diffraction pattern comes about will initially use common sense and think the photons interfere with each other, but this experiment shows that each photon actually interferes with itself. How is it that each photon interferes with itself and somehow decides it should have a certain probability of appearing some place? Quantum mechanics doesn't try to explain how it happens, it just states particles behave like waves until you observe them. Just as odd, Quantum mechanics says how likely it is to find a particle within a certain region, but once the particle is found, it will never tell you why it decided to appear there rather than somewhere else; for any one experiment quantum mechanics is "wrong" since it can't tell you what will happen, but on average quantum mechanics has always been right.

Something happened for any one experiment, and whatever happened should be considered reality. The problem is quantum mechanics can't say what will happen for any one experiment, so it shouldn't be considered reality. However; quantum mechanics represents the only reality we know since no one can explain what will happen for any one experiment. By embracing quantum mechanics as a theory that represents reality, I am tossing out a deeper reality that I know should exist; By rejecting the "truth", I am a lunatic.

wtf? Read up on this experiment and scientists explain that it's a puzzle and not fully understood. So what? Science has never claimed to know everything and it would be idiotic to claim to. The fact that this is an open question in no way makes scientists "lunatics". The theories get revised over time, with more experiments and data and eventually this question will be solved.

 

[W1zzard]

To see why quantum mechanics does not represent reality

quantum theory and general relativity make the best, most testable predictions out of all theories to date. of course they are not the absolute truth, but they are the best we have to work with

feel free to come up with an experiment that contradicts them

 

[qubit]

quantum theory makes the best, most testable predictions out of all theories to date

feel free to come up with an experiment that contradicts quantum theory

It's qamulek2 that said that, not me! You've clearly had too much Christmas wine W1zz!

I fully agree with what you said about quantum theory; we're on the same side.

 

[W1zzard]

fixed. the quote button doesnt take into account quotes

 

[qubit]

fixed. the quote button doesnt take into account quotes

lol, no problem.

 

[qamulek2]

I fully agree with what you said about quantum theory; we're on the same side.

At the end of the day, I believe we're all on the same side. Note my conclusion:

However; quantum mechanics represents the only reality we know since no one can explain what will happen for any one experiment.

My goal was to show how crazy it is to accept the norm. Quantum mechanics does not represent reality since it cannot tell me what happens for any one experiment, but at the same time I must accept it as representing my reality since no one can explain what happens for any one experiment.

I may not like quantum mechanics, but I do not deny its utility. No theory has been able to explain quantum weirdness yet, so I must accept quantum mechanics as a foundation of physics until someone can explain why the world obeys quantum mechanics in the first place.

quantum theory and general relativity make the best, most testable predictions out of all theories to date. of course they are not the absolute truth, but they are the best we have to work with

feel free to come up with an experiment that contradicts them

Easily done. What happens to a star that's about to turn into a black hole? To answer such a question physicists need both quantum mechanics and general relativity; the problem is most attempts to do so have failed. I find this interesting since the two theories are trying to define our reality, but when they are combined together they fail horrendously. If quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible, then which one will be tossed out as a flawed description of our reality?

Regarding the incompatibility, the books I have read point to the problem being that general relativity needs everything to be smooth, while quantum mechanics relies on discrete bundles of stuff(it's hard to be smooth when everything comes in packets). Despite the difficulty, there have been progress towards quantum gravity; two paths I have read about are string theory and loop quantum gravity. Of the two paths, I prefer loop quantum gravity due to its description of a black hole, but I won't talk further on it since I have only second hand knowledge on the subject. The point is progress is being made on quantum gravity, and that progress is being made by changing our reality: string theory wants particles to become strings, while quantum gravity wants to quantize space-time(I think...). It should be interesting to note that one path is changing quantum mechanics(everything is a string rather than a particle), while the other is changing general relativity(quantized space-time). Something must give to combine quantum mechanics with general relativity, and when that happens our definition for reality will change.

 

[The_Ish]

I hate that you need to be qualified to do anything in current society.

Back in the day if you were good at something or right that would be enough.

Amen to that!

 

[TheMailMan78]

Not that I agree with what this guy is saying but this is a very hypocritical approach by the scientific community dismissing anything. Electricity couldn't be proven to truly exist until the we could actually see electrons and protons. Only then was it "proven". Yet no one would argue it wasn't really there. Honestly a lot of science today is corrupted by special interest funding and they have a tendency to dismiss anything their funders disagree with.

Kinda like the Catholic Church of the dark ages executing people who disagreed with their teachings the same can be said of the scientists today disagreeing with the source of funding. Only now they don't kill you. They just discredit you in to oblivion.
Now with all that being said, I don't agree with this guy. Just don't feel he should be belittled and dismissed. Science is about an open mind. Some should try having one.

6 months ago nothing was faster then the speed of light. If anyone said that 6 months ago they would have been made fun of. Now they are not 100% sure. Scienece has become a system of mockery and belittlement to anyone who doesn't fit the status quo. Thats my issue with it right now. Science used to be open minded. Now it doesn't seem so much. What happen to the adventurism?

 

[qubit]

Honestly a lot of science today is corrupted by special interest funding and they have a tendency to dismiss anything their funders disagree with.

Yeah, that's so bloody true. Unfortunately, that's politics screwing it up and isn't science. :shadedshu

It's still true though, that there are a lot of crackpots out there and they really should be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Inceptor]

Umm...

It's very easy to create an argument or theory that, on the surface, sounds good, but in reality isn't very rational. It's the sort of thing that clever people with little education do all the time. Very few of them actually have the mental discipline and self-taught analytical sophistication to come up with anything actually useful. So, all the poorly educated and clever, from teenagers to old men, of the world who think they've come up with something brilliant, more often than not, haven't. They only manage to convince the ignorant; and those who are like them, the clever and poorly educated tend to say things like, "well, I like to keep an open mind, maybe they're right, you never know".

"No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated."
~ Crabtree's Bludgeon

 

[TheMailMan78]

Umm...

It's very easy to create an argument or theory that, on the surface, sounds good, but in reality isn't very rational. It's the sort of thing that clever people with little education do all the time. Very few of them actually have the mental discipline and self-taught analytical sophistication to come up with anything actually useful. So, all the poorly educated and clever, from teenagers to old men, of the world who think they've come up with something brilliant, more often than not, haven't. They only manage to convince the ignorant; and those who are like them, the clever and poorly educated tend to say things like, "well, I like to keep an open mind, maybe they're right, you never know".

"No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated."
~ Crabtree's Bludgeon

Then there are people who repeat talking points of other people and have never had any real world experience. These people are called experts more then not. Question the experts and you risk discredit among the masses. Accepting the status quo is far easier then to challenge the accepted. Most "educated" people enjoy being spoon fed facts. They don't like to get their hands dirty. I like to question motives and ends. I like to know for a fact someone is full of shit before I dismiss them. This is the way Science used to work. Now its more of a priesthood except for a few. But hey, lets just follow the leader right? It must be true. An expert said so.

 

[Solaris17]

i agree you don't have to go to school to learn these things, but i agree with qubit for sure that at the level we are at, you need an advanced understanding of science and especially mathematics to really contribute anything. for 90% of people that means school. very few people who think they are genius enough to learn advanced science on their own actually are.

not saying it can't happen - a relative layman could simply have a POV that others fail to see. but the chances of that are slim. for any considerable, long-term progress those technical requirements really need to be met.

and not everything deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I just want to interject and say that adjustments need ot be made to this statement. Laymen scenerios are all too common though not so common in other subjects. For example on this board alone. A few years ago I was reading a thread. Someone had a bad experience with a motherboard install. He was on his laptop and trying all sorts of things. The thread got to like 2 pages iirc. We were going nuts anyone contributing to the thread was at it 110% (imo this was a better time at TPU when people cared not like now) we were double and triple checking everything are you sure you put on the riser? thermal paste amount? examine the mobo look for chipped caps here here and here. at the end of the day he SERIOUSLY just didnt plug it in. which was almost the last post. Of course nothing that big happens often but you get it all the time. Even here. Someone will have a graphics card issue and we will go on forever about drivers and bios etc etc but he just didnt plug it in all the way.

Of course the science community probably has similar. They may not be huge but im sure even the simpilest problems happen all the time. Laymen arent allowed in such facilities but that doesnt mean they couldnt figure it out. if a scientist is having trouble with an algorythm and you watch him miss the division symbol when copying it you dont need a PhD to tell him he fucked up.