--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > As usual, Ruth doesn't dare quote me, but she figures > > she's responding to the post of mine that John was > > commenting on. > > > > Perhaps she should have read what I wrote instead of > > making assumptions about it: > > > > > Physicists such as Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli, > > > and Eddington turned to mysticism not because the > > > new physics validated a metaphysical understanding > > > of reality, but because the new physics told us > > > that the true nature of reality was forever beyond > > > the reach of physics. > > > > > > Whether mysticism provides a direct, unmediated > > > experience of the true nature of reality is another > > > question, but it's for sure that physics doesn't. > > > <sigh> > > In my post I was making my own comments, not responding > to your comments. I wasn't talking about Schroedinger et > al, but about Haglin et al.
Non sequitur. > I don't have anything to say about the "unmediated > experience of the true nature of reality." Too vague > a concept. Not to those who know what it refers to. But again, that's a non sequitur: quantum physics does *not* explain the true nature of reality. Even in terms of its symbology, what it describes is incomprehensible in that regard. > Physics does however tell us a lot about the physical > reality we experience. On the macro level, yes. But that wasn't the point. Classical physics fails to tell us that the objects we experience as solid, for instance, are largely composed of empty space. D'Espagnat was not saying, BTW, that an art such as poetry "fills the gaps" between classical and quantum physics, so Bub's objection that you quoted doesn't really apply.
