Demystifying Quantum Physics

[Sunstone]

Feynman: Sargeant 'Leadfoot' Ignoramus:slap:

Let me get this straight: You profess to both be an enlightened individual, and you also get into childish name calling?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let me get this straight: You profess to both be an enlightened individual, and you also get into childish name calling?

You aren't reading into it enough. You see, it's not childish at all, but an admission of complete ignorance. Hence the latin ignoramus. It's the first person plural of the verb ignoro meaning "I do not know" or "I am ignorant". And as godnotgod wrote it, I'm sure by "Feynman: Sargeant 'Leadfoot' ignoramus the implication was that just as Feynman said "nobody understands quantum mechanics", the "we' of ignoramus is there to show godnotgod not only doesn't understand quantum mechanics, but also doesn't understand Feynman.

 

[Sunstone]

You might not be able to see the chart if you are not logged in.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You might not be able to see the chart if you are not logged in.

If it was trying to take you to this page, it's just that Tuft's Perseus project is really annoying, so I changed the link to verbix. No definition, but it gives the conjugation. However, just to be on the safe side, from latinlexicon.org:
"not to know, to be unacquainted, be ignorant, mistake, misunderstand"

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Intuition is not a 'guess and check' method. You're just trying to pooh pooh it.

Why would I "pooh pooh" my own profession? There's nothing wrong with guess and check. There's nothing wrong with intuition, either, I'm just trying to put it in a wider context. Intuition is one (of many) ways to do the guessing part. Sometimes the evidence compels us to start making guesses which are NOT intuitive, which btw is exactly what Einstein did. This is a far cry from going to the extreme and suggesting that intuition is the basis of science ... that would be misleading, I think, without the context I just gave.

 

[godnotgod]

No, a simple dictionary would work, if you weren't trying to manipulate what you read to make it fit what you want. If you think you can twist some quote into indicating what you wish, you use it. If you don't, you ignore it:

I already provided what a simple dictionary defines 'intuition' as; in fact, I provided one definition from your preference, the Oxford, as well as MW. Go look.

No, we could use the clear cut word "intuition", but you aren't. You wish to see Einstein as using intuition instead of logic.

Excuse me, sir: are you saying that intuitively-derived understanding is less credible than ordinary logic? Followed through, intuition is the pathway to the mystical, which provides access to the Logos.

I never said or implied that Einstein is using intuition instead of logic: I said that he requires intuition as the pathway to reaching the laws in question. Again:

"There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them."

As for clear cut meaning, as long as we're going with meanings we may as well look at a dictionary in the right language. From the Wahrig Deutsches Wörterbuch:[/COLOR]
Intuition:
1) Eingebung, unmittelbare Anschauung ohne wissenschaftlich Erkenntis.
2) Fähigkeit, verwickelte Vorgänge sofort richtig zu erfassen

Yup! It is these, PLUS the other German word for 'intuition', which is 'Intuition'. THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING!

I am using the online German to English translator, translateonclick.com, which also provides the words you did.

Funny, because a german dictionary uses Eingebung to define Intuition. As for my view, I don't rely on quote mining websites to understand someone while ignoring his life's work. This is one word, in one sentence, in one speech. Einstein dedicated his entire life to physics and science, but you want to reduce him to a word.

No, I do not. I am merely establishing the fact that Einstein, via his own words, is telling us that the way to understanding the physical laws is via the intuitive pathway. Period. Just leave mysticism out of this, OK? We haven't even gotten there yet, nor do we need to, in order to address the original issue, which is that Einstein, like others, employed intuitive understanding as a pathway to scientific knowledge.

Intuition" is NOT throwing reason, logic, and an analytical approach out the window. It's simply a basic fact that theories in science require something more than pure logic and empiricism, because those are the tools to test hypotheses, models, and theories.

Ah! Now you're beginning to see the light!

What does he say the pathway is to? Science? No. What does he say this pathway requires? Experience. But what kind? And why? And why does he end with this thing about "a single logical system"? Why, if intuition is so important, is such emphasis placed on "pure deduction"?

You're reading the passage incorrectly. Here it is again:

“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them.”

The emphasis is placed on arriving at the laws, 'arriving' being the pathway, which is intuition, not deduction. He's saying that, in order to arrive at the laws which can then be built up by deduction, the ONLY path to those laws is via intuition. Deduction is the method, but intuition is the pathway to get to that point where deduction can then be utilized. IOW, it is key.

 

[godnotgod]

You aren't reading into it enough. You see, it's not childish at all, but an admission of complete ignorance. Hence the latin ignoramus. It's the first person plural of the verb ignoro meaning "I do not know" or "I am ignorant". And as godnotgod wrote it, I'm sure by "Feynman: Sargeant 'Leadfoot' ignoramus the implication was that just as Feynman said "nobody understands quantum mechanics", the "we' of ignoramus is there to show godnotgod not only doesn't understand quantum mechanics, but also doesn't understand Feynman.

I understand Sargeant 'cocksure' Feynman perfectly: 'My way or the highway'. But Feynman doesn't have a clue as to intuitive knowledge.

 

[godnotgod]

Why would I "pooh pooh" my own profession? There's nothing wrong with guess and check. There's nothing wrong with intuition, either, I'm just trying to put it in a wider context. Intuition is one (of many) ways to do the guessing part. Sometimes the evidence compels us to start making guesses which are NOT intuitive, which btw is exactly what Einstein did. This is a far cry from going to the extreme and suggesting that intuition is the basis of science ... that would be misleading, I think, without the context I just gave.

I never said that. I said that Einstein, via his own words, says that intuition is the ONLY pathway to arrive at the laws in question from which the cosmos can be built up via deduction. Logic does not provide such access. Again:

“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them.”
Albert Einstein

But thanks for helping to make my point, which is that intuition is the pathway which Einstein employed, which was the gist of the original issue.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, I do not. I am merely establishing the fact that Einstein, via his own words, is telling us that the way to understanding the physical laws is via the intuitive pathway.

I think as usual Einstein was waxing poetical. "The way to understand the physical laws" according to Einstein is probably best found in his peer-reviewed scientific papers, which understand the physical laws through rigorous logic and comparison to experimental observations. If anything, intuition favored Galilean relativity and not Einstein's theory of relativity. Furthermore, Einstein's own intuition was wrong about quantum mechanics. If you want to find support for your mystical beliefs in physics, take your pick: Einstein, intuition, or quantum mechanics. They disagree with each other so at the very least, you can't have all three.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I never said that. I said that Einstein, via his own words, says that intuition is the ONLY pathway to arrive at the laws in question from which the cosmos can be built up via deduction. Logic does not provide such access. Again:

“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them.”
Albert Einstein

But thanks for helping to make my point, which is that intuition is the pathway which Einstein employed, which was the gist of the original issue.

Insofar as Einstein really truly meant that while rejecting the wider context I gave, he was wrong. It wouldn't be the only time Einstein was wrong. Einstein was also wrong about that whole quantum nonlocality and "fields of infinite potentiality" thing you and Chopra like to claim support from. (By the way it was precisely Einstein's INTUITION, not his logic, which was wrong.) And that, in turn, means Einstein would have disputed your beliefs based on QM (supposedly based on, that is). This brings us back to the original question: why do you feel the need to get the authority of Einstein on your side?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I already provided what a simple dictionary defines 'intuition' as; in fact, I provided one definition from your preference, the Oxford, as well as MW. Go look.

You mean this?

> a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning
Definition of intuition in Oxford Dictionaries (US English) (US)

Interesting. Would you like to know what the Oxford English Dictionary actually says? It goes on for five pages. I could give you just some of the definitions without the listings, such as:
b. Immediate apprehension by the intellect alone; a particular act of such apprehension

or one instance of definition plus listings:

6. In a more general sense: Direct or immediate insight; an instance of this.

1780 H. Walpole Vertue's Anecd. Painting (ed. 2) IV. iv. 71 It is..a proof of his intimate intuition into nature.
1851 N. Hawthorne Fr. & Ital. Jrnls. II. 234 A miraculous intuition of what ought to be done just at the time for action.
a1862 H. T. Buckle Misc. Wks. (1872) I. 40 That peculiar property of genius which, for want of a better word, we call intuition.
1866 Duke of Argyll Reign of Law ii. 111 The intuitions of genius unconscious of any process.
1879 J. A. Froude Cæsar xxiii. 410 Rashness if it fails is madness, and if it succeeds is the intuition of genius.

but the entry is too long to post the whole thing.

Excuse me, sir: are you saying that intuitively-derived understanding is less credible than ordinary logic?

We can perform a little experiment. You've used some intuitive means to understand Einstein, while I've used an analytical approach. As a result, you've
1) Missed the years he dedicated to showing that quantum physics cannot possibly be correct for some of the very reasons you're drawn to it
2) Ignored his dismissive quotes on mysticism
3) Mistaken whatever website you used for the actual Oxford English Dictionary
4) Thought you were quoting Einstein when actually you were quoting an ex-convict who was sentenced to prison for stealing from NASA when he was an intern
5) Concluded that Einstein "gave a nod" to Buddhism when he barely mentioned it ever and compared Buddha to Jesus and Moses
6) Misunderstood his reference to Spinoza
7) Misunderstood Spinoza
8) Used a quote you found somewhere which Einstein never said, or at best was so bad a translation it only exists on websites promoting mysticism.

I'm not including your problematic use of dictionaries in general, as that is a wide-spread misunderstanding of language.

Followed through, intuition is the pathway to the mystical, which provides access to the Logos.

ho logos. There is disagreement on the Johannine origins of the prologue (en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos/Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) but it seems that everyone more or less agrees that rationality, or reason, or structured knowledge is a part of it. Certainly in general before and after John's gospel the use was that of reason and rationality, which is why the word "logic" exists. It's etymologically derived from logos.

I never said or implied that Einstein is using intuition instead of logic: I said that he requires intuition as the pathway to reaching the laws in question.

I read what you quoted. I read the entire speech, actually. And I know something of the context and what "elementary laws" meant then. I also know that Einstein's most brilliant work started with simple, intuitive questions about the speed of light. It's that "hint" of something being out there that Einstein refers to, and applauds those who apply rigor, logic, and analysis to test whether that little hint was a good one or not.

I also know that he chased down his intuition about quantum physics for years, an intuition fundamentally opposed to everything you find interesting about quantum physics. And he failed, because his intuition told him that there are elementary laws which can be used to determine anything and everything and ideas like nonlocality are intuitively wrong and he dedicated years trying to show this.

So you admire your understanding of his "intuitive process", despite the fact that it was this same intuition that caused him to reject every property of quantum physics you've referenced?

THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING!

They don't. But you don't study language or meaning and so I can't fault you for not knowing this.

No, I do not. I am merely establishing the fact that Einstein, via his own words, is telling us that the way to understanding the physical laws is via the intuitive pathway

.
Einstein did not say that. Here's your quote:
"There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them."

Where does it say anything about understanding? Also, what laws do you believe he was referring to?

Just leave mysticism out of this, OK?

The thread is "demystifying quantum mechanics". I have no problem leaving mysticism out of this, but you insist on seeing Einstein as some sort of intuitive role model for scientists everywhere. You distort his position, refuse to look at the "big picture", and simultaneously praise the intuition that led him to reject absolutely the very aspects of quantum physics you see as so important, such as nonlocality. This thread exists because of claims made about physics and mysticism. I would love to leave mysticism out of the discussion, but you insist on making inaccurate claims about what Einstein believed (based on a few lines you've read of his life's work) because you have tied this into to mysticism. Not me. I didn't equate quantum physics with mysticism, and I didn't hold Einstein up as a shining example of what scientists should be or should emulate (not that they shouldn't, just that the reasons you claim Einstein is somehow special here is utterly wrong and even more ironic is how you can reference his intuition as an example for scientists everywhere when his intuition told him that things like nonlocality had to be wrong).

We haven't even gotten there yet, nor do we need to, in order to address the original issue, which is that Einstein, like others, employed intuitive understanding as a pathway to scientific knowledge.

What's the alternative? What are you contrasting intuition with that makes this somehow special?

Ah! Now you're beginning to see the light!

Wow! I finally understand the process I use in research, and all thanks to your quote-mining of Einstein! Amazing!

You're reading the passage incorrectly

It's not a passage. I gave you a link, in English, to read the whole thing. Did you bother?

the ONLY path to those laws is via intuition.

...which is why he says nothing else, like (for example) experience, is necessary (except of course that Einstein specifically pointed out it was). Again, what laws do you think he is referring to?

 

[godnotgod]

I think as usual Einstein was waxing poetical. "The way to understand the physical laws" according to Einstein is probably best found in his peer-reviewed scientific papers, which understand the physical laws through rigorous logic and comparison to experimental observations. If anything, intuition favored Galilean relativity and not Einstein's theory of relativity. Furthermore, Einstein's own intuition was wrong about quantum mechanics. If you want to find support for your mystical beliefs in physics, take your pick: Einstein, intuition, or quantum mechanics. They disagree with each other so at the very least, you can't have all three.

They disagree with each other in YOUR mind; I see no conflict at all.

I'm not looking for support in physics. I don't need such support. The issue here is not mysticism, but the base for science, the arts, religion, and mysticism, which is the intuitive path, as Einstein partially pointed out.

Einstein makes a statement, and you not only deny it, but want to put other words in his mouth. Admitting that he utilized intuition as the basis for his thought process in scientific matters does not mean you need to accept mystical views at all.

 

[godnotgod]

Insofar as Einstein really truly meant that while rejecting the wider context I gave, he was wrong. It wouldn't be the only time Einstein was wrong. Einstein was also wrong about that whole quantum nonlocality and "fields of infinite potentiality" thing you and Chopra like to claim support from. (By the way it was precisely Einstein's INTUITION, not his logic, which was wrong.) And that, in turn, means Einstein would have disputed your beliefs based on QM (supposedly based on, that is). This brings us back to the original question: why do you feel the need to get the authority of Einstein on your side?

I don't. I don't have a 'side'; YOU do. My original statement was that:

"In the mystic's mind, both the intuitive and the intellectual are necessary. The scientist deliberately ignores the intuitive, that is, except for some, like Einstein, Planck, and Goswami."

So is that the problem? You think Reality has 'sides'?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They disagree with each other in YOUR mind; I see no conflict at all.

That may be because your entire understanding of Einstein comes from less than a dozen lines or so (and misquotes), and what you know of quantum physics comes from sources that are not primarily trying to explain quantum physics at all, but to show how quantum physics demonstrates something mystical/spiritual/immaterial/etc.

I'm not looking for support in physics. I don't need such support. The issue here is not mysticism, but the base for science, the arts, religion, and mysticism, which is the intuitive path, as Einstein partially pointed out.

He didn't. Einstein wrote passionately about the love of understanding and uncovering mysteries. He believed (and said quite clearly) that only a kind of religious devotion could enable a scientist to the necessary dedication required of the scientific methods. He dismissed not only mysticism, but anyone who couldn't see the materialistic complexity of reality with awe.

Einstein makes a statement, and you not only deny it, but want to put other words in his mouth.

Einstein made thousands upon thousands of statements. You wish to take one and interpret his entire life's work using that one. You have ignored multiple posts (and not just mine) pointing out what Einstein has said outside of your quote-mined supporting evidence. You are not only putting words in his mouth, you are insulting him by reducing his contributions, dedication, and years of work in science by misrepresenting what he believed because you read a few lines of his. Or at least read a translation.

Admitting that he utilized intuition as the basis for his thought process in scientific matters does not mean you need to accept mystical views at all.

True. It just means that Einstein was no different than any other scientist, because if science required only deductive logic, it would mean we already knew everything there was to know.

 

[godnotgod]

the ONLY path to those laws is via intuition.

...which is why he says nothing else, like (for example) experience, is necessary. Again, what laws do you think he is referring to?[/COLOR]

The allusion to experience is unimportant to the point, which is that, without intuition, access to the laws is not possible.

 

[godnotgod]

I also know that Einstein's most brilliant work started with simple, intuitive questions about the speed of light. It's that "hint" of something being out there that Einstein refers to, and applauds those who apply rigor, logic, and analysis to test whether that little hint was a good one or not.

Very good! That, really, is all I am saying, but you and Sprinkles have been turning molehills into mountains.

I also know that he chased down his intuition about quantum physics for years, an intuition fundamentally opposed to everything you find interesting about quantum physics. And he failed, because his intuition told him that there are elementary laws which can be used to determine anything and everything and ideas like nonlocality are intuitively wrong and he dedicated years trying to show this.

So you admire your understanding of his "intuitive process", despite the fact that it was this same intuition that caused him to reject every property of quantum physics you've referenced?

I stated no such admiration, nor did I claim anything about him being right or wrong in utilizing the intuitive mind; all I said is that he did. Period. You, like Sprinkles, think there are 'sides' to take and defend, where no such sides actually exist. That is why you continue to see conflict and contradiction where there is none.

But at this point, I am satisfied, as the both of you have made statements to the effect that Professor Einstein did indeed employ intuition in his work.

Next!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The allusion to experience is unimportant to the point, which is that, without intuition, access to the laws is not possible.

When did Einstein say anything about "access" to the laws? He didn't. And if the allusion is unimportant, why did EInstein make it? Not only did he make it, but the german sentence structure emphasizes it.

Also, once again you've failed to respond to just about everything which you are unable to but which poses challenges to your view. You asked:

Excuse me, sir: are you saying that intuitively-derived understanding is less credible than ordinary logic?

I'm not in a position to generalize here. But I can state that insofar as your approach to understanding Einstein, physics, and language is concerned, the answer is an aboslute, unqualified "yes".

 

[godnotgod]

Admitting that he utilized intuition as the basis for his thought process in scientific matters does not mean you need to accept mystical views at all.

True. It just means that Einstein was no different than any other scientist, because if science required only deductive logic, it would mean we already knew everything there was to know.[/COLOR]

Say! Did you know that THE Einstein was also AN einstein?

 

[godnotgod]

When did Einstein say anything about "access" to the laws? He didn't.

Yes he did, and in black and white, but I'm through going round and round with you. Go back and re- read.

And if the allusion is unimportant, why did EInstein make it? Not only did he make it, but the german sentence structure emphasizes it.

The allusion is unimportant to the point that the pathway is intuitive, which is, as he says, is "resting on sympathetic understanding of experience"

Also, once again you've failed to respond to just about everything which you are unable to but which poses challenges to your view.

I'm ignoring the rest (for now) as secondary to my point, which has already made.

I'm not in a position to generalize here. But I can state that insofar as your approach to understanding Einstein, physics, and language is concerned, the answer is an aboslute, unqualified "yes".

I didn't ask you what I think; I asked for YOUR opinion. So is your answer the same?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I stated no such admiration, nor did I claim anything about him being right or wrong in utilizing the intuitive mind; all I said is that he did. Period.

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle.”

Albert Einstein

You should poke around here awhile:

Chapter 1 : Einstein

Here's where you suggested people "poke around" a website about Einstein written by an ex-convict who, as an intern, stole from NASA. A suggestion that others do something is not just you saying "that is what he did". But you didn't stop there:

The site I referenced to about Einstein and intuition is a response to this sterile reductionism.

All that talk about "elementary laws" and you never understood that this was reductionism? As in utter, complete, and absolute reductionism?

And this post is just stating "what he did"? -

“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them.”

Albert Einstein

“Is it possible to reveal the beauty of Nature without translating that beauty into the terms of human senses? Is it possible to convey what Nature looks like without constructing a picture? After I pondered these questions, I realized that in order for us to wrap our intuition around the natural realm we must find a way to relate that realm to our senses. Literally, if we want to know what Nature looks like then we have to construct a picture. As Steven Strogatz eloquently puts it, “without direct visualization we are dynamically blind.” (Strogatz, “The Next Fifty Years,’ p.23.)
To explore this point suppose that I took a digital picture of what we dubbed ‘The Fountain of Buckskin Gulch,’ and then presented the digital information of that picture, the raw sequence of ones and zeros, to someone. Would that untranslated information help them see the fountain? This is more than just a question of lexicon, semantics, or syntax – it is a matter of connection. In other words, if I tried to present a facet of Nature’s beauty to someone without translating that information into a display that can be directly experienced by at least one of the senses, then how could I ever expect the recipient of that information to fully comprehend that beauty?
Einstein addressed this issue more poetically when he said,

“Knowledge exists in two forms — lifeless, stored in books, and alive in the consciousness of men. The second form…is the essential one.”

We can only obtain this second form when we extend the reach of our intuition into the depths of Nature’s secrets. But in order to do this we need a conceptual portal that is capable of unveiling a richer map.
This realization highlights a fundamental problem in the approach taken by modern physics. For the past several decades, theorists and mathematicians have been working on constructing a framework of Nature that is capable of mathematically combining the descriptions of general relativity and quantum mechanics under the same rubric. But their efforts have been focused on organizing Nature’s data into a self-consistent assembly — like the ones and zeros of a digital picture. The problem is that this inductive approach does not encourage, let alone require, the discovery of a conceptual portal. Even if physicists were one day to conclude that their assembly was mathematically correct, it would not actually increase our ability to truly comprehend Nature unless it was translated into some sort of picture. Therefore, since it is really the picture that we are after, maybe it is time for us to consider whether or not our efforts will bare more fruit under a different approach. Specifically, to maximize our chances of completing our goal of intuitively grasping Nature’s complete form, maybe we should follow the lead of young Einstein and return to a deductive conceptual approach. Perhaps it is time for us to place our focus on constructing a richer map of physical reality. If we don’t, then all of Nature’s elaborate arrangements may very well remain forever hidden in obscure mathematics and impenetrable sequences of data.”

Preface : Einstein

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein

You, like Sprinkles, think there are 'sides' to take and defend, where no such sides actually exist. That is why you continue to see conflict and contradiction where there is none.

Or it's because you continue to make claims about both physics and Einstein based on a few lines you read off of websites, refuse to acknowledge anybody using any method to show you that you are wrong, and in the end the only reason there are no "sides" is because you don't seem to care about accuracy, honesty, truth, integrity, or anything other than promoting your view and if it happens to be based on deceptive quotes, or ignoring history, or in any other way distorting what is known, who cares? There's no sides. Just whatever you want truth to be.

I'd rather retain the respect I have for those who think that there are some things that science can't answer but other methods can. And your manipulation of history, language, and even the entire work of an eminent physicist (one of the most respected and well-known scientists of the modern age) just so you can further your personal agenda is not what I'd like to think of as representative of anything, mysticism, religion, atheism, or whatever. I find it not only insulting and disrespectful, but a mockery of any seeker's quest for truth. You have every right to continue to do what you have so far. But I am just too tired to keep trying to show you how your distortions, manipulations, and other methods are the kind of methods and attitudes which cause scientists to dismiss spirituality and similar concepts as ignorance. And I don't wish to do that.