On Nov 29, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Rceeberger wrote: > Agree with what you are trying to say. > I think that as a magazine, NS is trying to engage lay folk and other > scientists whose expertise doesn't extend very far into QM. For most > of us > the metaphysics *is* the important aspect of QM. > It helps us to work out the nature of reality and what it means to > exist. > > For we, the dummies<G>, it is difficult to hold on to the ideas of > simultaneous existing/non-existing, objects frothing out of nothing, > or > matter mostly being not there in any sense that doesn't stagger > one's common > sense and bring it to it's knees whimpering and moaning. QM is > destructive > to much of the "rules" one has ingrained as soon as one learns to > walk, it > just seems to go against all that one sees in day to day life. > > The "rules" are of course, oversimplifications based on limited > observation > from a limited viewpoint, but for those of us who lack the time to > learn the > maths and pour over the datas, the metaphysics are all we have to > hold on > to. > We can understand philosophy much easier than maths, they are easier > for us > to discuss and digest. > > xponent > Paradox Maru > rob
Had this argument with someone who was pretending to understand MWI vs. Copenhagen the other day. "The universe is quantum, it only looks classical on our scale" was lost on her. :p (Although to be fair, classical mechanics does sum up pretty well what we see on our scale. It's just right for the wrong reasons, is all. :) "Thank you all for coming around to the self-evident point I made five minutes ago." -- Toby Ziegler _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
