"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Suppose a scientist on Tonomura's team had misgivings about the experiment after it was conducted and then had a dream vividly admonishing the concept "The electron emitted is not the same as the electron detected."

First, thanks for the attempt at an example.

Second, I'm not sure "admonishing" is the word you wanted there, but I get your meaning. (look at the examples here to see how the word is typically used: www.merriam-webster.com... )

Third, ATG is right. The dream is fine as a source for coming up with a hypothesis to test, as would be meditation, guessing, thinking, or other methods. They're all fine with me (though I'd note the better scientists tend to make better guesses that have a higher chance of being right).

But rather than settle for that unverified interpretation, as ATG said, a way needs to be devised to test it to see if it's correct or not. In fact I understand his hypothesis and I can tell you how I could design some experiments to test it. One way would be to just slow down the electron, and to accurately measure its velocity, and the time which the electron hits the screen. If the electron appears on the screen faster than the velocity of the electron fired could have delivered it to the screen, then that test would instantly prove it's probably not the same electron and his theory is probably correct.

If that didn't work, just fire the electrons at various velocities and note the expected arrival time at the screen versus the actual arrival time at the screen. If it's not the same electron, and his theory is correct, there will likely be other factors affecting the the arrival of the electron at the screen, in addition to the electron's velocity. If he can show the relationship is non-linear, or has an unexplainably large standard deviation, these findings might also support his theory.

Also note that photons exhibit similar behavior, and his theory makes some sense with electrons, but not much sense with photons.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Of course the dream is a starting point. I am not making the ridiculous suggestion that the dream would be a basis to say the experimental result everyone else thinks is valid is invalid, instead.

The point of the hypothetical is to illustrate the realm of consciousness/meditation/spirituality in interpreting the results of experimentation. Normally scientists would not even consider a dream as a reason to challenge their own rational, five-senses derived concept of an experiment they have just collaborated on.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The point of the hypothetical is to illustrate the realm of consciousness/meditation/spirituality in interpreting the results of experimentation.

That may be the intent, but in fact that hypothetical can use the dream as a starting point for another hypothesis, a hypothesis about how the experimental results should be interpreted.

If you just stopped there and said 'I had a dream it might be this way", and didn't plan to develop another experiment to test whether or not that was so, using the dream as a source of information would be a problem. But in that example, there's no reason to stop there, as more experiments are possible to demonstrate if the dreamt hypothesis is correct or not.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Second, I'm not sure "admonishing" is the word you wanted there, but I get your meaning. (look at the examples here to see how the word is typically used: www.merriam-webster.com... )

I did check a dictionary before I used the word and this is the definition I thought applied: 2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.

But I probably should have said "admonishing the concept of . . . "

However, let's not get off on an English usage tangent.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Of course the dream is a starting point. I am not making the ridiculous suggestion that the dream would be a basis to say the experimental result everyone else thinks is valid is invalid, instead.

The point of the hypothetical is to illustrate the realm of consciousness/meditation/spirituality in interpreting the results of experimentation.

That's not what I understood from what yuo wrote.

Normally scientists would not even consider a dream as a reason to challenge their own rational, five-senses derived concept of an experiment they have just collaborated on.

Of course not - because the dream cannot be objectively measured, observed or reproduced.

as far as science is concerned, the dream simply does not exist for exactly those reasons, and I cannot see how it could eve be otherwise.

the REASON people want their favourite non-science to be able to be classed as science is simple - something that is science has a cachet, a reputaion, a standing, a status.

People know what to expect from science 9even if as humans we often get things wrong). they accept that there have been stadards applied to somethign that is "science".

so being able to call something "science" lends it weight, prestige, imprtance and a level of acceptance - it opens doors and overcomes (at least initial) obstacles.

But the reason "science" has all this reputaion and ability is a few hundred years of rigorous application of the "scientific method" - the method is accepted as valid BECAUSE its application is (mostly) ruthless, it is objective, and it is, in fact, science!

Trying to include "spiritualism" under the banner of science is nonsense - it is a patently obvious attempt to cash in on the value of the title "science" without actually doing the work that is required to deserve that title.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That may be the intent, but in fact that hypothetical can use the dream as a starting point for another hypothesis . . .

Here is the point I was trying to make:

The dream should be used as a basis for a new hypothesis. But in today's environment, a scientist who is on a team that has just invested their time and energy and expertise on an experiment, following the scientific method properly, would not be favorably received by his/her associates, because he/she would be challenging them based on a dream.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Second, I'm not sure "admonishing" is the word you wanted there, but I get your meaning. (look at the examples here to see how the word is typically used: www.merriam-webster.com... )

I did check a dictionary before I used the word and this is the definition I thought applied: 2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
But I probably should have said "admonishing the concept of . . . "
However, let's not get off on an English usage tangent.

Let's do. It's a part of general culture, just like practicing the scientific method or brushing teeth.
You can admonish a person but not a notion or a concept.

And, Marko is delusional about having created a black hole, don't you think?

reply to post by buddhasystem


No.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You can admonish a person but not a notion or a concept.

You're right I'm wrong.

REWRITE: Suppose a scientist on Tonomura's team had misgivings about the experiment after it was conducted and then had a dream vividly admonishing him that "The electron emitted is not the same as the electron detected."

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You can admonish a person but not a notion or a concept.

You're right I'm wrong.

REWRITE: Suppose a scientist on Tonomura's team had misgivings about the experiment after it was conducted and then had a dream vividly admonishing him that "The electron emitted is not the same as the electron detected."

A notion or a concept cannot admonish a person either.

Meh.

And what do you mean "no" in your other post? Do you honestly believe that a black hole was formed in Rodin's torus?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

A notion or a concept cannot admonish a person either.

Meh.

The dream is admonishing the person. Pay attention.

And yes, a dream can be like a person.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And what do you mean "no" in your other post? Do you honestly believe that a black hole was formed in Rodin's torus?

I think he's referring to sucking energy out of the vacuum.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That may be the intent, but in fact that hypothetical can use the dream as a starting point for another hypothesis . . .

Here is the point I was trying to make:

The dream should be used as a basis for a new hypothesis. But in today's environment, a scientist who is on a team that has just invested their time and energy and expertise on an experiment, following the scientific method properly, would not be favorably received by his/her associates, because he/she would be challenging them based on a dream.

Did you not bother to read what has been written in response to this idea of yours in the last page or 2?

What happens toa new hypothesis is that it gets investigated using teh SCIENTIFIC METHOD - the dream can be no more than a start point, and the "challenge" will be evaluated upon subsequent investigation of EVIDENCE - which a dream is not.

You cannot claim a dream to be SCIENCE, and SCIENCE is a method that only admits of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD as evidence.

And that is WHY science is stong and has a great deal of credibility - because it does not allow non-science to be included in the method.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
this is the definition I thought applied: 2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.

In my experience that's the most common usage.

Suppose a scientist on Tonomura's team had misgivings about the experiment after it was conducted and then had a dream vividly admonishing him that "The electron emitted is not the same as the electron detected."

I'm not so sure if a dream can admonish. But if it can, this might be the type of context where the word might make more sense:

"Suppose a scientist on Tonomura's team had misgivings about the experiment after it was conducted and then had a dream admonishing him that he should not agree with the other scientists on the team that the electron detected was the same as the electron emitted"

Referring back to the dictionary, "the counsel against something to be avoided" is specified in that example, which would be the behavior of agreeing with the other team members. Do you see the difference?

And I said admonish may not be the word you want because that example gets away from your original intent, which I think could have been said without the word "admonish" like this:

"Suppose a scientist on Tonomura's team had misgivings about the experiment after it was conducted and then had a dream which gave him the idea that the electron emitted is not the same as the electron detected."

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The dream should be used as a basis for a new hypothesis. But in today's environment, a scientist who is on a team that has just invested their time and energy and expertise on an experiment, following the scientific method properly, would not be favorably received by his/her associates, because he/she would be challenging them based on a dream.

OK let's say they've completed the experiment, and are going over the results and writing the paper. What's going to happen after he has this dream?

First, he will look at the data they have to see if any of the existing data confirms or rejects his idea. Assume it doesn't do either. Then he's going to say something along these lines to his fellow scientists:
"Hey guys, I'm not sure if the electron detected is the same one that was emitted, I think we may have upset the equilibrium of the system when we fired electrons into it. Oh by the way, that thought came to me in a dream"

Well they can't announce any finding based on the dream in the paper. But what they could do, is announce some uncertainty about continuity of the electrons and state that a further experiment is planned to answer this question. And they don't have to mention the dream in the paper they publish so you wouldn't read about that in the paper. But if it turned out to be right and the subsequent experiment confirmed it's not the same electron, if they interviewed the scientist and asked him how he came up with that idea, he could say it came to him in a dream, even today, right? I don't see any problem with that. It's already happened:

Throughout history, inventors, writers, artists and scientists have solved problems in their dreams.

Kekule, the German chemist who discovered the structure of the benzene molecule, had worked endlessly to figure it out. Then, in a dream, he saw snakes forming circles with their tails in their mouths. When he awoke, he realized that the benzene molecule, unlike all other known organic compounds, had a circular structure rather than a linear one. .....

Of course he didn't publish his dream as science, but if the dream is the source of inspiration and science confirms it, I don't think anyone has any problem with that, so I still don't see what is new about your example.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Too much time on "admonish."

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
"Hey guys, I'm not sure if the electron detected is the same one that was emitted, I think we may have upset the equilibrium of the system when we fired electrons into it. Oh by the way, that thought came to me in a dream"

I like that.

However, my sense is that would not happen in today's environment. The scientist would not feel free to say such a thing.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Scientists are just humans like you and me and I see no reason why they would have an issue expressing something like that. But even if it were true, they can just leave out the details how they came to it and say "it just popped into my mind". Or do you think that is also not done for scientists?

reply to post by -PLB-


I feel that the culture is such that consciousness and intuition as opposed to rationality and logic does not have enough standing to overcome the pressures of competitiveness. People would prefer not to be told something that they weren't clever enough to think of themselves.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I think that the wild speculation and brainstorming that goes on behind the scenes is beyond any of our imagination. But just lets assume you are right and any form of non-rational source of ideas is ignored. How do "people in power" impose this on anyone? Why do they do this? And how should this be stopped?

Originally posted by -PLB-
But just lets assume you are right and any form of non-rational source of ideas is ignored. How do "people in power" impose this on anyone? Why do they do this?

People at the top are at the top because they're conniving. They think they are the elite of the human race and should make the decisions therefore it is appropriate to use "the noble lie" because that's how to get things done. They create the environment they want behind the scenes using their vast wealth and manipulative tactics. They do whatever it takes.

Originally posted by -PLB-
And how should this be stopped?

Ordinary people have to wake up and stop being minions of the powers that be.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
People at the top are at the top because they're conniving. They think they are the elite of the human race and should make the decisions therefore it is appropriate to use "the noble lie" because that's how to get things done. They create the environment they want behind the scenes using their vast wealth and manipulative tactics. They do whatever it takes.

Can you give a concrete example? I can't imagine how any one of the professors at the university I went to is restricted in the way they think or the way they get their ideas by someone in power.

Ordinary people have to wake up and stop being minions of the powers that be.

I can't recall that I have ever been restricted in the way I think by people in power, and I don't know of anyone who has either. Again, can you give an example? And how do you imagine this awakening to happen?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-

 

I feel that the culture is such that consciousness and intuition as opposed to rationality and logic does not have enough standing to overcome the pressures of competitiveness. People would prefer not to be told something that they weren't clever enough to think of themselves.

Twiddle twaddle. Do you think rationality accounts for how normal scientists make new discoveries? How is asking for reasons why such insight must be correct stifle creativity? If people dream up answers, they're usually accepted as long as their observations with reality is consistent.