Quote:
.. Arkain101 ..
The key word here is like.
One slit creates a single band, like a particle can and like a wave can. Two slits creates a interference pattern, like a wave might. Trying to measure with a signal before the slits can break down the the wave function and cause it to create two bands like two streams of particles or like two waves that are no longer interfear with eachother.
As for simularity between that, and the framework of reality having mental constructs and physical properties;
As I said all objects that are known as things (physical objects), and behave in familiarity to macroscopic things we know, are mental contructs.
|
In my opinion, this is not quite correct.
One slit creates a single diffuse band, regardless of the number or timing of the particles.
Two (or more) slits create a wave pattern. The wave pattern infers the collision or interaction of many particles all in the (approx) same space and time frame.
These actions satisfy physical objects (things) in our macroscopic world…. Whether we interpret them scientifically or as mental constructs.
However, when a single object (particle) creates a wave pattern (a pattern only produced by the action of the collective or many) then this can no longer be interpreted by a 'mental construct'. This does not mean that scientifically it does not happen.
Quote:
.. Arkain101 .. The circumstance creates the product, relative to the context of the investigation.
If you exclude the observer from the experiment, you find confusing results of wave-particle duality. But, it takes an observer to then make this claim of the results.(so the observer is never actually out of the experiment).
|
The only thing that is confused by the results is our mental construct. The Maths/Science is not confused.
With your Macro proposal I tend to loosely agree, but not so with your Micro. Sophisticated experiments have been setup and tested, many, many times to rule out any bias by 'mental constructs'. These experiments do not set out to 'find' expected results but are setup on the principal of 'Devil's Advocate'. You infer that the experimenter can never be totally dis-associated from the experiment, I disagree ... of course an experiment must take place somewhere in the universe and we are part of that universe... but this is not a position that can be debated sensibly.
On the 'Trinity', points one and two I do not really follow. Its possible we have different ideas on space and time. On point three I don't agree with the logic. If we decide arbitrarily that we (C) are at rest in the 3 reference system, why can we also not make that arbitrary decision in the 2 reference system? The 3 reference system allows no more accurate deductions than the 2 reference system. In either system all deductions are relative ??
Furthermore, the 'Trinity' with its three postulates seems to contradict Kickass's contention that nothing can be stated conclusively.
The 'logic of mind' and the 'logic on matter', where they agree we feel content. That is not to say they must. The Cosmos is not regulated to suit our ideas of rational .. we may never have explanations that suit our ideas of logic ... But what we currently have is similar to saying the Earth is round, as opposed to the Earth is flat. These may both ultimately prove incorrect descriptions of the Earth. But 'round' is not as wrong as 'flat'
Please understand that these are my opinions only, I have been wrong many times before ... Drum
