A new physics will have overtaken by the time we intuitively understand QM. It's a kick imagining what Newton would think about what we think today and the results that have been achieved.
Pyrrho: You are really on a role. Just great stuff, lately! Yes, Wilbur is almost too good to be true. Maybe truth, to some, is not all that important. There are two ways to look at things. Time, for instance. Barbour doesn't believe that it is real. He looks at it with imaginative thinking and QM. It seems like an hallucination to me, but it is really like a beautiful dream. On the other hand, there is a difference between just experiencing a dream and suspecting which parts are hallucinations.
So that's it? You think Ken Wilber is a "poetic approach"? What do you make of his claims about color-tagged levels of consciousness? Or his cowtowing to people who claim consciousness "must" be explained quantum-mechanically?
Einstein also said similar things about knowing and the importance of intuition and imagination.
But in a thousand years from now quantum mechanics will have long been superceeded and will be an exhibit in the museum of ideas along with Ptolemaic astronomy and maybe even Darwinism...who knows.
Will the theories of that time make any more intuitive sense than QM? I wont ever know; but my intuition is that Einstein's suspicion of QM was right and that reality is not a dice game.
Being a Taoist I don't have a rist-watch. It really drives it home that time is relative. Each room you enter has its own clock. Each person you ask time has its own time. Time turns into not just a measurement but a quality. The time is the moment, but it also is the differencial time, how fast is the time passing. Or, how difficult the next hour is going to pass by. A lot like the cloud. A dark time. Or you begin to concentrate on the arms of the clock. Waiting it to pass.
If we haven't been knocked back into a dark age or gone extinct, I would predict that a thousand years from now these questions will be complicated by the fact that we'll have likely been toying with our own DNA for quite some time.
there's also different ways of making sense of something; some would argue that you should be able to see it, as for instance a conceptual structure, while others might argue for a step-by-step rigorous mathematical proof. .
While, at least to me, the latter is more rigorous, the former seems to be better aligned with what i would qualify as "understanding"..
What we mean in general is not at all clear. We have to bring truth and meaning into this."Utility"? "Holism"? "Axiomatic"? etc.
ie. does making sense of something mean that we are able to put it to use? or that we can find metaphors that make sense for it? that we can deduce it from obvious axioms?
if it's the case, as may very well be, that meaning and truth are part of the solution to the riddle we face in physics today, then we cannot simply import our own primitive conceptions of "understanding" to the future..
if to state my belief it is that we face a singularity altogether, both intelligence, meaning, truth...
A new physics will have overtaken by the time we intuitively understand QM. It's a kick imagining what Newton would think about what we think today and the results that have been achieved.
EgotisticalZilch 2 years ago
Pyrrho: You are really on a role. Just great stuff, lately! Yes, Wilbur is almost too good to be true. Maybe truth, to some, is not all that important. There are two ways to look at things. Time, for instance. Barbour doesn't believe that it is real. He looks at it with imaginative thinking and QM. It seems like an hallucination to me, but it is really like a beautiful dream. On the other hand, there is a difference between just experiencing a dream and suspecting which parts are hallucinations.
paradirob 2 years ago
Correction: I meant 'roll,' not 'role.'
paradirob 2 years ago
So that's it? You think Ken Wilber is a "poetic approach"? What do you make of his claims about color-tagged levels of consciousness? Or his cowtowing to people who claim consciousness "must" be explained quantum-mechanically?
I'd like a bash-Ken-Wilber thread on youtube.
otonanoC 2 years ago
I don't know much about Ken Wilber, I have not watched videos of him, and I was responding to what conference report said in general.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Einstein also said similar things about knowing and the importance of intuition and imagination.
But in a thousand years from now quantum mechanics will have long been superceeded and will be an exhibit in the museum of ideas along with Ptolemaic astronomy and maybe even Darwinism...who knows.
Will the theories of that time make any more intuitive sense than QM? I wont ever know; but my intuition is that Einstein's suspicion of QM was right and that reality is not a dice game.
Drastam 2 years ago
Being a Taoist I don't have a rist-watch. It really drives it home that time is relative. Each room you enter has its own clock. Each person you ask time has its own time. Time turns into not just a measurement but a quality. The time is the moment, but it also is the differencial time, how fast is the time passing. Or, how difficult the next hour is going to pass by. A lot like the cloud. A dark time. Or you begin to concentrate on the arms of the clock. Waiting it to pass.
Israe5l 2 years ago
2:19 - "a thousand years from now"
If we haven't been knocked back into a dark age or gone extinct, I would predict that a thousand years from now these questions will be complicated by the fact that we'll have likely been toying with our own DNA for quite some time.
PlebRule 2 years ago
complicated... or simplified?
do you think we'll need to make major structural changes to our brains to understand QM and Relativity on an "intuitive" level?
alternately, seperate from needing such changes... will we have made such changes?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
I think that so day we wil find some kind of organztion to the QM world.
wolverine10mm 2 years ago
there's also different ways of making sense of something; some would argue that you should be able to see it, as for instance a conceptual structure, while others might argue for a step-by-step rigorous mathematical proof. .
While, at least to me, the latter is more rigorous, the former seems to be better aligned with what i would qualify as "understanding"..
What we mean in general is not at all clear. We have to bring truth and meaning into this."Utility"? "Holism"? "Axiomatic"? etc.
CPLains 2 years ago
ie. does making sense of something mean that we are able to put it to use? or that we can find metaphors that make sense for it? that we can deduce it from obvious axioms?
if it's the case, as may very well be, that meaning and truth are part of the solution to the riddle we face in physics today, then we cannot simply import our own primitive conceptions of "understanding" to the future..
if to state my belief it is that we face a singularity altogether, both intelligence, meaning, truth...
CPLains 2 years ago