[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is th

To: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:16:33 -0800
Message-id: <p0623090ec38a387bc077@[]>
>Pat -
>I am working on a deadline so can only pay 
>cursory attention however - I find many points 
>you mention worthy
>of digging deeper for learning purposes, 
>considering you may have some knowledge there
>  There is only one actual
>scientific theory of quantum theory (actually
>quantum electrodynamics, aka QED). That theory is
>embodied in the mathematical equations from which
>the empirically validated predictions can be
>And  what does it  say exactly?    (01)

"say"? Well, the answer can only be given using 
mathematics, and I am not competent to do a good 
job of explaining it.    (02)

>or better, what do you make of it?    (03)

I have been trying to understand, ie make 
something of, QED since I first heard about the 
two-slit experiment when I was an undergraduate. 
I am still trying. The transactional 
interpretation is the most intuitive Ive seen so 
far. There are several on-line accounts of it 
which you can access through Google.    (04)

>That is, what  'laws' and principles do we infer from QED    (05)

I don't know how to answer that question. QED 
consists of laws and principles. There are many 
textbooks which try to explain the ideas in 
reasonably intuitive terms, but the fact is that 
QED is highly unintuitive, no matter how you 
express it. The real world, it seems, is not at 
all like the world which appears to our senses.    (06)

>and what impact/implications does the scientific
>theory of QED have on the rest of the scientific body of knowledge?    (07)

It underlies, and is the foundation of, virtually 
all of physical science. It is the only theory 
which can explain how atoms are possible, for 
example, and can account for radioactivity and 
nuclear fusion (which makes the stars work) as 
well as many chemical and other physical 
phenomena. You may have read that solid things 
are mostly empty space; QED explains why they 
'feel' solid, why they cannot interpenetrate each 
other.    (08)

>To repeat: there is
>(so far) one theory of QED, but many
>Correct me if I am wrong: you are saying here 
>that there is no such thing as 'quantum logic', 
>but only 'quantum mathematics'?    (09)

No. Quantum logic is a separate topic altogether, 
irrelevant to this discussion.    (010)

>please elaborate    (011)

Sorry, to elaborate on quantum theory is beyond 
me, and in any case isn't relevant to this forum.    (012)

Pat    (013)

>The oldest one, which has found
>its way into many written works, is the
>Copenhagen interpretation. For many years it was
>the only one, so came to be identified with QED:
>but now there are others. And some of these
>others do not mention state superposition and
>quantum wave-function collapse. So, to return for
>a second to psychology: any account of, say,
>consciousness, which uses the collapse of the
>wave function as part of its explanatory
>apparatus (as Stapp's does) is not based on QED,
>the actual science, but only on the Copenhagen
>interpretation of QED, which isn't really
>anything more scientific than a parable.
>>On Dec 9, 2007 8:31 AM, Christopher Menzel
>  ><<mailto:<mailto:cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> 
>  >wrote:
>>On Dec 7, 2007, at 6:59 AM,
>  ><mailto:<mailto:paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx 
>>>   ...
>>   >
>  >>
>>>   In this account, there is no 'collapse', so its a hard stretch to
>>>   posit that consciousness causes or results from it.
>>>   luckily we can all have our favourite choice of science to justify
>>>   our views of the world
>>So, let's see, we have our worldview and then we choose the science
>>that fits. Great! I choose Young Earth Creationism. Man, that was
>  >
>>Message Archives:
>  ><<http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/> 
>  >Shared Files: 
>>Community Wiki: 
>>To Post:
>  >
>>Paola Di Maio
>>School of IT
>  ><<http://www.mfu.ac.th>http://www.mfu.ac.th><http://www.mfu.ac.th> 
>  >Message Archives: 
>>Unsubscribe: mailto: 
>>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>Community Wiki: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>To Post: 
>IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
>Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
>FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
>Paola Di Maio
>School of IT
>*********************************************    (014)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (015)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (016)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>