Why Do I Believe in the Scientfic Method?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not in Quantum Mechanics it doesn't. This is you yet again misconstruing the scientific usage of a word with the layman version.

That opinion piece you provided was challenged in the comment section . Did you happen to read that far ? I am surprised you didn't offer up a peer reviewed reference but chose a opinion piece instead .Not very scientific methedoty of you . eta from the about of your reference

Canadian author Paul Anlee writes thought-provoking, epic sci-fi in the style of Asimov, Heinlein, Benford, and Reynolds, stories that challenge our assumptions and stretch our imagination. Literary, fact-based, and fast-paced, the Deplosion series explores themes in philosophy, politics, religion, economics, AI, VR, nanotech, synbio, quantum reality, and beyond. “When done right, I think sci-fi is the best genre for challenging what you think you know about the universe and your place in it. One reason I write is to shine a bright, rigorous light on the assumptions in our everyday interactions with our world.

That was kind of funny lol
eta and a quote from the comment section

Isaac Jacob Kremsky · Postdoctoral researcher at Emory University Your assertion that the soul is "probably nonexistent" does not represent an objective statistical argument based on observation, but rather a subjective statement about what you believe to be true based on what you "know". An objective statement of likelyhood like that is really only meaningful in a controlled experiment, which the universe most certainly is not. So It is your belief, plain and simple. Given that we understand consciousness so poorly, I also think it is risky to so confidently assert it plays no role in the observer effect. If we define consciousness simply as being aware of your own existence, then by definition the universe is conscious (because we know something exists; also, non existance creates a contradiction, because by definition non-existence is that which does not exist). That self-awareness is an inherent part of the underlying wavefunction of the universe, and I think it would be a huge and possibly harmful mistake for us to brush that under the rug.

I have another theory.
"Sticking a fork in a toaster is a bad idea."
We need a control group.

a reply to: Astrocyte

The scientific method also states the earth has a solid core at its centre. How could they know then when the deepest hole that has ever been dug or drilled does not even extend beyond the earth crust let alone through 3,000 ks of molten lava hot enough to soften and bend drill rods and cause them to get stuck in the hole.

Science creep occurs when scientists and their follwers, go from " we THINK the earth has solid core (to explain gravity) to, "It is established scientific fact that the earth has a sold core."

good science to junk science

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Would you have understood it if I had posted a peer reviewed article? I was trying to post something you could understand. Even after I posted it, you still conflated the layman and scientific definitions of observation so I don't feel like I should have. Plus scientific definitions don't need peer reviewed papers backing them up. There isn't an experiment that defines what an observation is in Quantum Mechanics. There are experiments that test observations, but that isn't what we were talking about at the time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There isn't an experiment that defines what an observation is in Quantum Mechanics.

But the term observer/observation is used within the science of Quantum Mechanics . You are saying that there could be many or a few convoluted definitions but no one definitions we can all be on the same page with . That would explain the comment from a post doctorate to a science fictions writers definition of observer then . So yea you can chose to accept a fictitious definition because science has no clear definition as of yet . I guess I will think of a observer as something or someone observing as a definition so as not to be confused .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is ONE definition in Quantum Mechanics for it. There is also a layman definition of observer, but Quantum Mechanics isn't using it. Do you not know what the definition of "layman" is either?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well as a layman or lower I wonder just how close to the real definition that science fiction guy got . Can we have the real definition so I can compare ? link please

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well as a layman or lower I wonder just how close to the real definition that science fiction guy got . Can we have the real definition so I can compare ? link please

arxiv.org...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

This may help - or not.

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not have to necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.

A number of new-age religious or philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims. Such interpretations are also highly questionable in nature.

en.wikipedia.org...(quantum_physics)

@ Skunkape23

This is what Astrocyte means by objective reality and that we must bow down to accept it. But, he also mentions that knowledge of magic (some of us consider quantum mechanics as a sort of magic or not yet understood forces) which at this point can be looked at as either subjective or objective reality, depending on personal experience or experiment.

What I also didn't know is how well known this stuff is. A parallel reality can exist - a world and culture with social beings like you who have something you don'thave: knowledge. Sir Francis Bacon spoke very accurately when he described knowledge as power, even if he probably meant it in a scientific way, he perhaps also meant it in a magical way: that knowledge of magic, or reality as an "energetically alive being", is a profound sort of knowledge that renders the person aware of it somewhat different from the person who isn't. Yet ALL knowledge is power - scientific knowledge, because it is so painstakingly gotten, is the more profound knowledge of all: it is the sort of knowledge that a logically organized mind cannot help but bow to. It is truth - it is legitimate, objective reality - the same thing that makes you and your motivations and your beliefs what they are.

Here's another point of view on the 'observer' in the double slit experiment:

There are theories that actually propose that not only that the particles do not attain a particular state till the moment of observation but beyond that all history that lead to the occurrence of that result was created in the moment of observation.

www.quora.com... ust-a-CCTV-equipment

For me, just mulling it around, perhaps it is a physical change within the forces/fields when an oberser (any type) is present to displace the space in a closed environment, so to speak.

Is there really any research anymore that is truly scientific and has no influences or agendas? I don't believe so.