It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Journal of Nonlocality started out as an open access, non-peer reviewed publication in 2002 under the title Journal of Nonlocality and Remote Mental Interactions (JNLRMI). Volumes I-IV are accessible in full text at emergentmind.org...
In 2011 ICRL decided to adopt the title Journal of Nonlocality for its new peer-reviewed publication, building on the research directions outlined by the now-retired JNLRMI, but with an exclusive focus on experimental design and empirical results. While some of the original editorial board members remain, a sustained effort has been made to broaden the expertise area and reach out to the mainstream research community in related fields such as biophysics and foundations of quantum mechanics.
EDITORIAL TEAM
Quantum physics is no science anyway, it's mysticism and Taoism.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
Quantum physics is no science anyway, it's mysticism and Taoism.
No, it describes observable phenomena.
Quantum physics is no science anyway, it's mysticism and Taoism.
This a non-logical (because non-deterministic), therefore non-sensical, stance on reality.
This is EXACTLY the claim of Taoism: « Truth CANNOT be known. »
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
This is EXACTLY the claim of Taoism: « Truth CANNOT be known. »
Your understanding of Taoism is on a par with your knowledge of science.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
Quite unlike mysticism or Taoism, quantum theory makes reliable, falsifiable predictions about things in the real world. The purpose of science is to provide answers to physical questions, not metaphysical ones, and quantum theory has been admirably successful in this.
It is not necessary to propose a causal mechanism in order to relate a series of events. A statistical correlation is quite sufficient.
Taoism main stance is that the Tao (which can be interpreted has Truth) is ineffable. Which means "can not be told", which means cannot be understood.
Not true. Most of quantum physics concept are unfalsifiable: virtual particles, non-locality, quantum superposition and duality... The only way to invalid them is to get out of quantum mechanics and propose alternative theory. A new branch of science alltogether.
Also, it doesn't make predictions (unless you count probabilities as predictions) since CAUSALITY and DETERMINISM are denied.
And what is a 'science' that doesn't explain anything but only observe phenomena?? The "how" isn't a scientific answer anymore?
It is not necessary to propose a causal mechanism in order to relate a series of events. A statistical correlation is quite sufficient.
Sufficient for what? To call it a science? Certainly NOT.
Originally posted by DJW001
Taoism does not say that things cannot be understood. It does say that understanding cannot be expressed in mere words.
There are indeed similarities between some mystical traditions and modern science. In science, there are descriptions of the world that are purely mathematical. Any attempt to render them into verbal descriptions seems nonsensical.
If one cannot expressed something in "mere" words it means that ‘one’ doesn't understand 'it'.
If NO ONE can express a concept in a satisfying rational/logical way, then this concept doesn't have any COGNITIVE value.
Most Quantum physic’s concepts are ILLOGICAL in the purest sense of the word since they don’t respect basic laws of logic.
Alternative causal/deterministic theories CAN replace them. So, tell me, why aren’t they even considered or are ridiculed like you, other posters and most of the scientist community, do?
What is more ridiculous to defend and promote illogical concepts as truth or to propose rational/causal/meaningful alternative ones?
There are indeed similarities between some mystical traditions and modern science. In science, there are descriptions of the world that are purely mathematical. Any attempt to render them into verbal descriptions seems nonsensical.
Because, as mysticism, they ARE.
Wave/particle duality is an example of this. An observable phenomenon can be described in terms of a "probability wave." One cannot readily imagine this, and yet it is mathematically true.
What you don't understand is that mathematics are like any other language. A sentence can be grammatically correct and still makes no sense (doesn‘t describe anything real). (e.g. "Walls dream of cars")
Language, like science, has to reflect reality. It doesn't CREATE any it/any.
Mathematics are not truth. Mathematics are simply a language with its own rules (grammar).
A valid equation, doesn't make it SOUND nor true (meaning conforming with Reality).
Also, mathematics rules are (should be) subject(ed) to change and to evolve.
The best and simple example is demonstrated (indirectly) by Zeno's paradox(es).
If mathematics were always sound, we couldn't even move... (since any and every distances can be divided ad infinitum).
Yet, we can.
(Formal) LOGIC should preside over mathematics since mathematics are a subset of it.
Therefore concepts like the "wave/particle duality", quantum (superposition) states... shouldn't even be considered at all. Other (logical and causal) explanations should be sought.
As for "duality", how about the possibility that the movement of the particles CREATES the waves which, then, interact with those particles and creates the effect we see in the double-slit experiment for example.
Yes, we would have to accept the fact that the ‘Ether’ exists. Too complicated, too cumbersome for lazy minds?
My point is that Mathematics are not "Truth". They have to be confronted with reality and explained, in plain words (new concepts can be created though) and CONFORM TO LOGIC. Which is clearly NOT the case for Quantum Mechanics (see the laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction).
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
ME: If NO ONE can express a concept in a satisfying rational/logical way, then this concept doesn't have any COGNITIVE value.
YOU: How did people see the color red before science explained how the nervous system processes visual light?
What form of logic? There are several to choose from. In some a proposition can be both true and false.
Agreed. There were mathematical systems like non-Euclidean geometry that were internally consistent yet appeared to make no sense. It turns out that these counter intuitive mathematics actually describe the nature of the physical world!
But when it does conform to reality, that is, it accurately describes what can be observed, then it is both sound and true.
They are considered. Einstein spent quite a bit of time trying to find alternatives, but they simply don't explain observed phenomena as well as QT.
1. I'm not quite sure what this false paradox is intended to prove.
2. It is usually used as an argument against formal logic!
Others consider formal logic to be a subset of mathematics.
But experiments have shown that the ether does not exist. It seems that the laziness is on the part of people who cannot master the mental gymnastics necessary to comprehend QT.
The problem here is that your understanding of logic is about two millennia out of date
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
You know, quantum mechanics does have something in common with Taoist thought. The common feature is that they are not within everybody's capability to grasp. Some people find it hard to reconcile themselves to this, so they reject them out of hand. I call this the Argument from Intellectual Incapacity.