evince (02-27-2023)
In principle, I tend to agree.
The interesting question that's been on the table for a couple centuries is if science is giving us a true picture of nature and reality, or whether it's just describing our phenomenological experiences with nature.
The preeminent German physicist Ernst Macht wrote that space, time, motion, mass, force, and energy were all names of relationships. Physics describes relationships. It does not reveal ultimate realities.
evince (02-27-2023)
The story I've read is that Heisenberg and Schrodinger independently came up with different mathmatical treatments of the quantum wave function, and both had perfectly adequate predictive power.
But they both can't be true and certain depictions of reality. They both can't be right.
That is an example of this long standing debate in philosopy of science. Do scientific theories represent reality as it really is? Or does they only represent relationships of our experiences with nature
Doc Dutch (02-26-2023)
Cut and paste and citations to experts happens about ten thousand times a day on this board.
Your threads almost always include a copy and paste from some article.
I am interested is discussing the ideas of the greatest minds in science and philosopy. I don't care what your or Perry PhD's ideas on quantum mechanics are. You all don't have any original ideas about it. None. Nada. Zip. What we have are the various ideas of subject matter experts we can discuss and evaluate.
They apparently are both equivalent.
(Emphasis added)Originally Posted by APS
Actually if they are equivalent they can both be true. One is based in matrices the other based in wave functions.But they both can't be true and certain depictions of reality. They both can't be right.
It seems that the value of Heisenberg's matrix approach was that it led to the Uncertainty Principle.
I am not entirely certain this would be a good example of two competing theories that are mutually exclusive. It really looks more like a framing difference.That is an example of this long standing debate in philosopy of science. Do scientific theories represent reality as it really is? Or does they only represent relationships of our experiences with nature
But it would help if you had a bit more chemistry under your belt. I understand it is not required for a BS in geophysics but it might help you discuss rather than just quote.
Nor do you. You appear further hampered by having even less chemistry knowledge in general.You all don't have any original ideas about it. None. Nada. Zip.
How on earth do you propose to discuss things you don't understand? I'm not saying I understand it any better than you but at least I'm willing to talk about it. All you ever do is list references. You confuse a bibliography for a text.What we have are the various ideas of subject matter experts we can discuss and evaluate.
In reality 99% of your posts and threads are little more than you showing off by quoting people about things you don't really understand. And when someone dares try to talk to you about it in detail you run away. And then you wait for Doc to show up on the thread and support you at every turn. That way it looks like you get the support you so desperately want for having zero technical insight of your own.
"Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"
Cypress (02-26-2023)
Isn't it funny that the post I did on the science you avoid. But you ALWAYS engage on this type of post.
hmmmm.
You don't seem like you actually have any science background.To long to read and to full of petty grievances and lingering resentments to place any stock in
Why do you think people will be impressed with your pitiful "name dropping" game? Is that how you got your "geology degree"?
Bookmarks