The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

Posted on by

Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube.  Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this.  Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.

And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes.  Right?  So you can learn from this.  Wink, wink.  Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying.  Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist.  I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it.  The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows.  “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on.  You know the one.

And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message.  I mean, look, its plain as day, right?  He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it?  Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a  name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???

But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second.  If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be?  95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0  ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).

And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.

1,212 thoughts on “The Skeptics Wink and Nod.”

  2. Corneel:
    CharlieM: You were applying active fantasy, not active imagination in the sense that I am using it. A demonstration of using active imagination is in thinking about the relationship between the earth sun and moon and their mutual relationship. Using our senses alone we would believe that the sun moves across the sky while we are stationary, but we know that isn’t the case.

    Corneel: So “active imagination” sensu Charlie involves several centuries of detailed observation, mathematical modeling, testing predictions of the movement of celestial bodies and, oh yeah, a pinch of visual imagination. In that case I would argue, contra your position, that inferring the existence of archetypes does not involve “active imagination” at all, because it skips the entire empirical part.

    Yes active imagination involves a great deal of thinking and observation. We do not see these movements directly so the only way in which we can visualize it is by use of our imaguination.

    Recognizing archetypes can only be achieved after a very careful and intricate study of the subject through observation and thinking. Rather than skipping the empirical part it cannot be achieved without it.

    CharlieM: Yes, you deliberately created a meaningless string of letters.

    Corneel: Absolutely not! I made a perfectly meaningful string of letters and then rearranged it in a creative way. And guess what? All meaning was lost because you cannot parse the meaning from the letters when they do not occur in agreed-upon sequences.

    Made my point beautifully, I thought. Metaphors!

    This reminds me of a Morecambe & Wise sketch where Eric responds to Andre Previn’s criticism of his piano playing by saying that he was playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order.

    It doesn’t matter how you arrived at that string, it wouldn’t have any meaning for anyone else who read it.

    CharlieM: There are many physical processes, both directed and indiscriminate that influence the sequence of DNA.

    Corneel: Moreover, those physical processes suffice to explain modern biodiversity.

    Many people are satisfied with this explanation and many others are sceptical of the sufficiency of these processes alone.

    CharlieM: I do know that the physical substance is a much more transitory part of the organism than the form.

    Corneel: Form cannot exist without physical substance, so it seems a bit pointless to reify it.

    Idealists would argue that you cannot make such a claim.

  3. OMagain:
    Corneel: For that to happen is PSI required?

    CharlieM: That did happen to an old work colleague of mine. If I remember correctly he was walking down the corridor in a hotel in Italy when he heard a familiar voice calling his name. But one incident like that doesn’t mean much.

    Corneel: How unlikely is it? Is it more or less likely then some of the results that “prove” PSI effects are real?

    Isolated incidents like that tell us nothing about psi. But even if most of them can be put down as coincidence, if someone finds that this sort of thing is happening to them frequently then they might begin to consider them as beyond coincidental.

  4. CharlieM: Recognizing archetypes can only be achieved after a very careful and intricate study of the subject through observation and thinking. Rather than skipping the empirical part it cannot be achieved without it.

    Why did you leave out the part about mathematical modeling and testing of predictions, I wonder? Without those ingredients there is no empirical part.

    CharlieM: It doesn’t matter how you arrived at that string, it wouldn’t have any meaning for anyone else who read it.

    That is why your portrayal of DNA as an alphabet arranged by some creative force is misleading. The DNA is “read” by the cellular machinery and its sequence is constrained by its effects on organismal fitness. That is its meaning, if you like, and the forces that shape the genome need to operate within that context.

    CharlieM: Many people are satisfied with this explanation and many others are sceptical of the sufficiency of these processes alone.

    And I seek to understand why the latter are dissatisfied with the current set of lovely explanations.

    CharlieM: Idealists would argue that you cannot make such a claim.

    Pragmatists would answer “so what? what use is there for the alternative view”?

  6. DNA_Jock:
    CharlieM: I’m not complaining about either. My point is that without much more study and delving into the details I cannot make any categorical claims either way.

    DNA_Jock: You stated that “The problem lies with the selection of the data.”
    My apologies, I took that as a categorical claim.

    CharlieM: I’m open to being persuaded that they are seeing something that isn’t there but if you want to do so you will need to give me more than claims that there work is “rubbish”.

    DNA_Jock: I was referring to your statement as “rubbish”, in particular your claim that W&S saw false positives because they had not taken all of the data into account. That is absolute rubbish, which I note (with no small satisfaction) that you have just conceded you cannot make any ‘categorical’ claims about.

    Sorry, I should have said the Radin claims they had not taken all the data into account.

    CharlieM: They claim to see significant trends in all the hundreds of events they have or are continually monitoring. Would all of these have been reproducible in sham experiments?

    DNA_Jock: Err, you appear to be confusing the double slit experiments with the GCP…

    Sorry again, I was waffling.

    CharlieM: When they look at cyclical events over the years such as New Year celebrations and they find these events show consistent small but measurable results unexpected by random chance, why is this inadequate?

    DNA_Jock: Confounding factors, including celestial mechanics.

    CharlieM: They carried out the further exploratory analysis after a request by Walleczek to re-examine the data. One experiment like this is not going to establish the presence of any psychic abilities.

    DNA_Jock: One experiment, properly performed, is the ONLY thing that is going to establish any psychophysical effect. But you are right, one experiment like this ain’t gonna do it.

    CharlieM: Raw data always needs to be manipulated in some way in order to present it in a suitable fashion and I have not seen any evidence of them hiding any of their procedures in the way they present their findings.

    DNA_Jock: but you admit to not delving into the details…

    I haven’t used the software available for the GCP as you have, no. But as May, Spottiswoode & Faith said:

    It is tempting to take advantage of the sophisticated statistical software that is available that makes complex analyses a simple task of pressing a button. But, of course, this convenience has a negative side, also.

    This brings us back to the problem of choosing which is the best way to deal with the amount of data being generated.

    CharlieM: It’s not that important to me if Radin and others in the field have failed to show any positive results in some of their experiments.

    DNA_Jock: Naughty. My claim is that Radin et al have failed to show positive results in ANY experiment (that were analyzed in the pre-specified manner). You are welcome to offer a counterexample, but you will have to be willing to delve into the details and defend their use of statistics. You keep declining to engage.

    I’ll leave that for the statisticians to argue over.

    CharlieM: But I do think it is important that people who are ignorant of the facts feel they have the right to make judgements on those matters.

    DNA_Jock: So, given that you have professed your ignorance yet continue to opine, the only way I can parse this sentence is that you are defending the right of the ignorant to opine. The alternative reading of this sentence, that people who are ignorant should NOT make judgements, would be something of an own goal; if you were trying to imply that I am ignorant of these matters, prove it!

    Oops, I forgot to go back and complete that sentence before posting. It should have read:

    But I do think it is important that people who are ignorant of the facts and feel they have the right to make judgements on those matters should at least become familiar with the subject.

    I can’t remember the exact words I had planned to use, but those are close enough to my intention.

    The ongoing Global Consciousness Project is gathering data from random event generators located in multiple places around the world and they have made the data available to anyone who wishes to use it.

    DNA_Jock: No shit, Kojak. What do you think I did before Xmas?

    Maybe, put up a few decorations? 🙂

    How did you decide on which data to select when you used it and did you sample any other blocks other than what you have shown us?

    CharlieM: I think he believes sincerely that there are demonstrable effects to be seen and he isn’t trying to hoodwink anyone. But I also think that this type of research gets more than its fair share of criticism and the establishment holds a fair bit of prejudice against it.

    DNA_Jock: Well, again: given your admitted ignorance, how would you know what a “fair share” of criticism might look like?

    I think the majority of us are ignorant of the correct use of the statistics involved. This is evident when even the experts are in such strong disagreement.

    As for the Global Consciousness Project, Radin and Nelson claim there is a measurable effect and they suspect it is caused by group consciousness but we don’t yet understand how it happens. Bancel also claims there is a measurable effect but it is caused by experimenter effect. And Spottiswoode agrees that there is a discernible effect. It is anomaly in need of an explanation.
    Spottiswoode

    The field of research parapsychology has evolved to the point that there is now incontrovertible evidence of a statistical information transfer anomaly. In other words, we must reject the null hypothesis. Some of the recent meta-analyses that address issues of methodology, replication, and summary statistics can be found in Utts (1991; 1996), Bem and Honorton (1994), and Radin (1997). Note that we have been careful not to claim that the existence for ESP has been proved. Rather, given that ESP has a negative definition — it is what happens when nothing else should — the declaration of an anomaly is the only valid statement that can be made.

    Of course if experimenters are able to influence the results they are getting, as happens in quantum experiments but with a much less noticeable effect, then there is a problem in that there is no way of telling so called objective results from data that the experimenter is somehow influencing.

  7. CharlieM: , Radin and Nelson claim there is a measurable effect…

    I’ll allow that someone can observe and record the output of a random number generator. The leap of faith is that the “effect” of a changing output has any correlation with a nebulous idea of people emotionally concerned over an event in the news.

  8. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: If you want more detail why don’t you take a closer look at the ongoing experiment that is the Global Consciousness Project

    Alan Fox: Apologies for not responding sooner.

    That isn’t a problem because I’m usually way behind in looking at the comments.

    Alan Fox: So I followed your link and have a couple of questions:

    Who is Roger Nelson?

    He is the main person behind the Global Consciousness program. Following on from lab work he decide it might be a good idea to take portable random event generators out into the field and after that he decided to put a network of generators in various places around the world.

    Following the link in the text that you linked to “The Bottom Line” there is a table of results that purport to connect “world events” with something. What it the something and how is it being measured?

    That something is various readings taken from random event generators.

    Alan Fox: Is this a case of coincidence, concurrence or connection?

    They are looking for correlations. They are now satisfied that there are very minute but significant correlations. So they would like to get others involved in looking for reasons for these purported correlations.

    Alan Fox: Is there a working hypothesis?

    Try this link

  10. CharlieM: Are you open to the idea that individuals can influence quantum events without any physical contact?

    No. But if you can show that it happens, I’ll be forced to reconsider. How can you show that?

  11. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: The Global Consciousness Project team analyse the data in two distinct ways, one using paired REGs and the other treating them as a network of single REGs. They claim that both give similar results.

    Alan Fox: So the claim is some people somewhere collectively reflect on some newsworthy bad event which causes random number generators to output nonrandom figures? Am I understanding correctly?

    No. They are looking for correlation. Causation is another matter.

  12. DNA_Jock:
    CharlieM: I took it that you were asking me how many ways the machines could be paired up, not how many ways the data from the machines can be paired. The latter of course is an unfeasibly large number. Can you explain how you came by your estimate?

    DNA_Jock: [Splutter] There’s a difference? You do understand that the RNGs are not actually physically paired, right?

    Yes.

    DNA_Jock: You have the outputs from all of the RNGs, and you pair them up to do the analysis. But the number of possible combinations is the same either way. [!]
    I am betting that you calculated the number of different ways to choose one pair out of 38 RNGs:
    =38 ways to pick the first one, and 37 ways to pick the second one. 38 x 37 = 1406.
    Hence your CYA “Close to 1500”
    But you forgot to divide by 2 — there’s only 703 distinct pairs you could create.

    Well that depends if you treat ab and ba as the same pair or distinct pairs. You might want to treat either a or b as the pivot. I erred on the side of caution.

    What we are interested in, however, is how many different ways we could take 38 RNGs and generate 19 pairs. The easiest way to think about this is to imagine that we have already ranked all of the RNGs, whether by age, or serial number, or distance from Princeton. Start with the #1 RNG, and pair it. Then go to the next unpaired RNG and pair it, etc.
    With 38 RNGs, there’s 37 ways to pair the first one, then 35 ways to make the second pair, etc. That’s 8 x 10^21 ways.
    I only had 27 glitch-free RNGs for 9/11, so I had a mere 5 x 10^13 available ways to make 13 pairs and leave one unused. I picked one that looked promising.

    According to Nelson they look at pairwise correlations, a with b, a with c, a with d, and so on which gives them a couple of thousand pairs to check. If you have a problem with which correlations Nelson is actually looking at then you’ll have to take it up with him.

    Radin analyses the data using a different method than Nelson.

  13. phoodoo:
    CharlieM: Yes, it’s all relative. It’s just as inaccurate to treat the sun as stationary with everything else moving around it. Most of us believe that the rotating solar system is moving around the galaxy, but we cannot experience this directly with our senses. We can, however, experience this reality in our imagination. That is what I mean by active imagination.

    phoodoo: So what I think is that we make these conclusions that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the sun revolving aound the Earth, because we introduce a universal observer, outside of space. A god if you will. So we say, according to that observer, that is what it would look like.

    I guess Carl Sagan was not an atheist afterall.

    Well if he still has a point of view, it’s no longer from any location within space. 🙂

  14. Alan Fox:
    Charlie, what I read you as saying is there is no smoke without fire but not actually showing us any smoke.

    What about fire without smoke? 🙂

  15. Corneel:
    CharlieM: Recognizing archetypes can only be achieved after a very careful and intricate study of the subject through observation and thinking. Rather than skipping the empirical part it cannot be achieved without it.

    Corneel: Why did you leave out the part about mathematical modeling and testing of predictions, I wonder? Without those ingredients there is no empirical part.

    I didn’t. That’s the thinking part.

    CharlieM: It doesn’t matter how you arrived at that string, it wouldn’t have any meaning for anyone else who read it.

    Corneel: That is why your portrayal of DNA as an alphabet arranged by some creative force is misleading. The DNA is “read” by the cellular machinery and its sequence is constrained by its effects on organismal fitness. That is its meaning, if you like, and the forces that shape the genome need to operate within that context.

    And how does the same genome produce all the different tissues and organs of the body? How is gene expression coordinated?

    CharlieM: Many people are satisfied with this explanation and many others are sceptical of the sufficiency of these processes alone.

    Corneel: And I seek to understand why the latter are dissatisfied with the current set of lovely explanations.

    Because the more technology advances, the more that’s revealed of the coordinated intricacies from the molecular level upwards.

    CharlieM: Idealists would argue that you cannot make such a claim. (Form cannot exist without physical substance).

    Pragmatists would answer “so what? what use is there for the alternative view”?

    What use is there in believing form cannot exist without physical substance?

  17. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: , Radin and Nelson claim there is a measurable effect…

    Alan Fox: I’ll allow that someone can observe and record the output of a random number generator. The leap of faith is that the “effect” of a changing output has any correlation with a nebulous idea of people emotionally concerned over an event in the news.

    Maybe it is time for a new thread.

  18. CharlieM: That’s the thinking part.

    Not in my book. Rationality in itself is not empiricism. Observation, experimentation and hypothesis testing are required as well.

    CharlieM: And how does the same genome produce all the different tissues and organs of the body? How is gene expression coordinated?

    Tissue-specific gene expression is mainly regulated by transcription factors that convey positional information. But you already knew this, didn’t you? You have been told many times before.

    CharlieM: Because the more technology advances, the more that’s revealed of the coordinated intricacies from the molecular level upwards.

    There is nothing that prevents “coordinated intricacies” arising from known physical processes, as far as I am aware. Do I sense a little personal incredulity here? Looking for the ghost in the machine?

    CharlieM: What use is there in believing form cannot exist without physical substance?

    Parsimony for starters; one cannot observe form except when it manifests in physical substance anyway. Secondly, one is not tempted into making up non-testable concepts that *may* just be complete nonsense.

  19. Corneel:
    CharlieM: That’s the thinking part.

    Corneel: Not in my book. Rationality in itself is not empiricism. Observation, experimentation and hypothesis testing are required as well.

    When we think mathematically in a rational way what are we doing? We are making inner observations. Think of pure bifurcation. Is this thought personal to you, or is it a universal thought that you are apprehending? Pure mathematics is an experience which perceives that which is universal, applied mathematics is personal.

    CharlieM: And how does the same genome produce all the different tissues and organs of the body? How is gene expression coordinated?

    Corneel: Tissue-specific gene expression is mainly regulated by transcription factors that convey positional information. But you already knew this, didn’t you? You have been told many times before.

    But gene expression involves a coordinated network of activities. It is not a linear sequence of causes and effects.

    CharlieM: Because the more technology advances, the more that’s revealed of the coordinated intricacies from the molecular level upwards.

    Corneel: There is nothing that prevents “coordinated intricacies” arising from known physical processes, as far as I am aware. Do I sense a little personal incredulity here? Looking for the ghost in the machine?

    There is no ghost and there is no machine. Biological organisms are intrinsically whole whereas machines are assembled from parts. And despite the fact that material substances are continually transitioning through them they remain whole.

    CharlieM: What use is there in believing form cannot exist without physical substance?

    Parsimony for starters; one cannot observe form except when it manifests in physical substance anyway. Secondly, one is not tempted into making up non-testable concepts that *may* just be complete nonsense.

    August Kekulé claimed to have imagined the form of the benzine ring prior to any observation of its material form. Architects visualize the form of a structure before any plans are drawn up.

    Some thing we may need to test for ourselves while those around us may consider them as untestable.

  20. Alan Fox: CharlieM: Are you open to the idea that individuals can influence quantum events without any physical contact?

    Alan Fox: No. But if you can show that it happens, I’ll be forced to reconsider. How can you show that?

    Surely you are aware of all those experiments which show that in quantum mechanics the act of observation has a profound effect on the outcome?

  21. CharlieM: Surely you are aware of all those experiments which show that in quantum mechanics the act of observation has a profound effect on the outcome?

    No, I’m not, Charlie. Tell me more.

  23. Alan Fox: CharlieM: Surely you are aware of all those experiments which show that in quantum mechanics the act of observation has a profound effect on the outcome?

    No, I’m not, Charlie. Tell me more.

    Experiments where light or fundamental particles are passed through two narrow slits or some sort of beam splitter. If the source is particulate the light should pass through either one of the slits and produce traces on the screen accordingly, and if it is wave like it should pass through both producing an interference pattern. If the light is observed when passing through the splitter it forms a pattern on the screen expected of particles, unobserved it forms a wave like pattern. This is known as wave/particle duality.

    You must have heard of this surely!?

  25. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM,

    Yes. What’s the connection with observation having a profound effect on outcomes?

    The writers in the site agree with me that the observers are having a profound effect.

    What does the experiment tell us? It suggests that what we call “particles”, such as electrons, somehow combine characteristics of particles and characteristics of waves. That’s the famous wave particle duality of quantum mechanics. It also suggests that the act of observing, of measuring, a quantum system has a profound effect on the system. The question of exactly how that happens constitutes the measurement problem of quantum mechanics

  27. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM,

    Some things can’t be measured without being changed by the act of measuring. Not seeing anything profound.

    There is no physical contact between the observer and the system.

  29. Charlie is rocking a fairly common misunderstanding of what the word “observed” means in this context.
    Here’s a cool experiment:

    The fact that we can state a definite outcome, albeit coded, from the experiment is inconsistent with the presence of an uncollapsed superposition, however. Therefore, any explanation of our main experiment that requires a superposition involving both the boxed-system and one or more of the observers can be discounted. Our results are consistent with the idea that a measurement from the Geiger counter is sufficient to collapse the quantum state, most likely because the counter involves amplification processes that are irreversible [13]. Conscious perception of the outcome of a quantum measurement is not a prerequisite for the collapse of a quantum wave-function.

  30. CharlieM: There is no physical contact between the observer and the system.

    Don’t be silly Charlie, any observation at the quantum level involves some physical shit bombarded to the thing being observed. Well, often the things being “observed” are bombarded onto something, and they get destroyed. We’re talking about quantum level stuff Charlie. We’re not talking about pointing a lamp towards Mount Everest.

  31. CharlieM: When we think mathematically in a rational way what are we doing?

    Then we are off to a good start, but still only doing half of the work. It is good to think about stuff, but it isn’t empiricism.

    CharlieM: But gene expression involves a coordinated network of activities. It is not a linear sequence of causes and effects.

    As long as changes to the DNA have fitness effects, this is irrelevant to my point:

    The DNA is “read” by the cellular machinery and its sequence is constrained by its effects on organismal fitness. That is its meaning, if you like, and the forces that shape the genome need to operate within that context.

    You have a habit of writing lots of stuff that isn’t necessarily wrong, but is often unresponsive. Try to keep focus.

    CharlieM: Biological organisms are intrinsically whole whereas machines are assembled from parts. And despite the fact that material substances are continually transitioning through them they remain whole.

    If you like. That still leaves the question: Why are known physical processes insufficient to explain biodiversity? You haven’t told yet, only mumbled a bit about “coordinated intricacies”.

    CharlieM: August Kekulé claimed to have imagined the form of the benzine ring prior to any observation of its material form. Architects visualize the form of a structure before any plans are drawn up.

    Did chemists believe Kekulé on his pretty blue eyes, or did they try to verify the hexagonal structure of benzene with, say, X-ray diffraction studies? If the latter, why do you suppose they did that?

  32. Let me backtrack a bit here. You asked:

    Alan Fox: Am I reading this right? You are asking me to consider random number generator outputs can be influenced by world events?

    To which I replied , yes.

    But that is just one possibility to consider. I would like to add that I’d also like you to consider that there may be an observed correlation without any determination as to causes.

    I then asked:

    CharlieM: Are you open to the idea that individuals can influence quantum events without any physical contact?

    I can see that I have asked the wrong question here. What I would like to ask is, are you open to the possibility of interaction-free measurement “without any physical particle / matter / energy being transferred between the parties”?

  33. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM,

    Then how is the observation being made?

    Good point which made me think about the question I had asked and to retrace our exchange. Hence the further question in my previous post.

  34. DNA_Jock: Charlie is rocking a fairly common misunderstanding of what the word “observed” means in this context.
    Here’s a cool experiment:

    The fact that we can state a definite outcome, albeit coded, from the experiment is inconsistent with the presence of an uncollapsed superposition, however. Therefore, any explanation of our main experiment that requires a superposition involving both the boxed-system and one or more of the observers can be discounted. Our results are consistent with the idea that a measurement from the Geiger counter is sufficient to collapse the quantum state, most likely because the counter involves amplification processes that are irreversible [13]. Conscious perception of the outcome of a quantum measurement is not a prerequisite for the collapse of a quantum wave-function.

    I agree that it doesn’t matter what is doing the detecting. It can be a conscious human or a mechanical device. Either way the wave function will have collapsed.

    I like Wheeler’s analogy of the great smokey dragon

    “The mouth of the dragon is sharp, where it bites the counter. The tail of the dragon is sharp, where the photon starts,” Wheeler wrote. The photon, in other words, has definite reality at the beginning and end. But its state in the middle — the dragon’s body — is nebulous. “What the dragon does or looks like in between we have no right to speak.”

    Particles are physical entities while wave functions are mathematical abstractions, and photons would seem to be both of these things.

    And it would seem that the physical world is only one part of reality.

  35. Entropy:
    CharlieM: There is no physical contact between the observer and the system.

    Entropy: Don’t be silly Charlie, any observation at the quantum level involves some physical shit bombarded to the thing being observed. Well, often the things being “observed” are bombarded onto something, and they get destroyed. We’re talking about quantum level stuff Charlie. We’re not talking about pointing a lamp towards Mount Everest.

    Yes, I’ve retracted that rash statement. So what about biology at the molecular level? Can we treat interactions between molecules within nucleic acids and the like in the same manner as causes and effects are treated in classical physics?

  36. CharlieM: I can see that I have asked the wrong question here. What I would like to ask is, are you open to the possibility of interaction-free measurement “without any physical particle / matter / energy being transferred between the parties”?

    First, I wonder why it would matter. A classic case for me was first encountering Blackbird on another discussion site. I dismissed the idea initially as counter to the conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics but I saw the light eventually.

    Or as a character in Game of Thrones remarked: “I’m open to anything really”.

    Have at me!

  37. Charlie:

    I’m going to give you the chance to win some virtual money. Here on the table in front of you I have three half-walnut shells and a pea. Now, watch carefully! I place the pea under one shell and shuffle the shells around with amazing and professional dexterity. Now, your turn! Choose a shell, the one you think the pea is under. If you choose the one with the pea, you win virtual ten dollars. OK, you keep that near you – no, don’t turn it over yet. Let me show you something. Here are the two shells you didn’t choose and I’m going to turn one over. Ah, no pea! Now, are you still happy with your choice? Because, if you like, I’m going to let you swap to the other unturned shell. Would you like to swap?

    (Hint: as a professional shell game player, I can keep track of the hidden pea)

    Anyone can answer: keep or swap. No spoilers!

  38. CharlieM:
    Yes, I’ve retracted that rash statement.

    Sorry that I hadn’t noticed you retracted it.

    CharlieM:
    So what about biology at the molecular level? Can we treat interactions between molecules within nucleic acids and the like in the same manner as causes and effects are treated in classical physics?

    Though I wouldn’t use the “cause/effect” terminology, if you meant “treat as if classic physics,” then, since we do, sure we can. Should we? Well, it works to some degree. There’s some attempts to try quantum mechanics on some details about them, but the math is too costly …

  43. This is really another example for Charlie of something I found counter-intuitive and it took a while for me to get, even with patient (and some impatient) explanations. The human mind, who can explain it?

  44. Alan Fox: Just don’t mention… you know who.

    Yep. I thought that if I wrote “Voldemort” everyone would quickly google/find the answer.

  46. OMagain,

    I didn’t think it through.*

    Right first choice is A, B, or C**?

    Second?

    Third?

    And you stick on those choices after my offer?

    *Bonus offer to spot use of this phrase in recent BBC TV series.

    **The shells are indistinguishable but for purposes of internet discussion, lets call them…

  49. Corneel:
    CharlieM: When we think mathematically in a rational way what are we doing?

    Corneel: Then we are off to a good start, but still only doing half of the work. It is good to think about stuff, but it isn’t empiricism.

    That all depends on the thinking.

    If you can understand why :Goethe said this maybe you will see why inner contemplation can be empirical.

    In the spring of 1794, Goethe travelled to listen to a lecture in Jena and afterwards, on the steps outside the building where the lecture had been given, he shared with the philosopher Schiller his experience of the archetypal plant. Schiller responded to Goethe’s words by saying “That is not a description of something objective, but is only an idea”. To this Goethe replied “Then it is clear that I see my ideas with my eyes”.

    I see a meteor shower in basically the same as the cat across the street and my five year old grandson. Our visual abilities may vary but the process is basically the same in all these cases. Which one of us do you think has the most complete understanding of this event, how it relates to reality and why?

    CharlieM: But gene expression involves a coordinated network of activities. It is not a linear sequence of causes and effects.

    Corneel: As long as changes to the DNA have fitness effects, this is irrelevant to my point:

    So how do transcription factors acquire positional information and keep track of this as cells migrate during development?

    Corneel: The DNA is “read” by the cellular machinery and its sequence is constrained by its effects on organismal fitness. That is its meaning, if you like, and the forces that shape the genome need to operate within that context.

    But fitness is a very slippery term. If a few inches of height gives a giraffe a fitness advantage does this mean that a tall giraffe that has just reached maturity will outcompete its younger siblings who may have become taller adults but don’t get the chance when food is scarce? In ever changing conditions a trait that is advantageous might suddenly turn into a disadvantage.

    You have a habit of writing lots of stuff that isn’t necessarily wrong, but is often unresponsive. Try to keep focus.

    It’s a matter of keeping focus while retaining sight of the bigger picture.

    CharlieM: Biological organisms are intrinsically whole whereas machines are assembled from parts. And despite the fact that material substances are continually transitioning through them they remain whole.

    Corneel: If you like. That still leaves the question: Why are known physical processes insufficient to explain biodiversity? You haven’t told yet, only mumbled a bit about “coordinated intricacies”.

    Believing that creativity is determined by physical forces alone is a matter of faith.

    CharlieM: August Kekulé claimed to have imagined the form of the benzine ring prior to any observation of its material form. Architects visualize the form of a structure before any plans are drawn up.

    Corneel: Did chemists believe Kekulé on his pretty blue eyes, or did they try to verify the hexagonal structure of benzene with, say, X-ray diffraction studies?

    The scientists who believed Kekulé would have initially done so on faith and by thinking for themselves about how it might work. Experiments would have followed on from the thinking. And further thinking would show that Kekulé wasn’t quite right in his depiction of the ring.

    Corneel: If the latter, why do you suppose they did that?

    They did that because they knew from their thinking imagination that an image produced by the crystal would conform to the arrangement of atoms making up the molecule.

    Why should empiricism be restricted to outer experience when our inner experiences contribute so much in gaining knowledge.

    Goethe’s delicate empiricism” is a way of understanding nature by using the mind to combine the separate impressions of the senses into a meaningful whole. This inner unification is an act of discovery not of invention.

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, recognised as a seminal German polymath, developed a unique approach for investigating nature, termed “delicate empiricism”. Goethe’s approach uses empathy, imagination and intuition to promote a participatory engagement with the world. It goes beyond the dualistic-rationalism that defines “conventional” ecological research and can lead to novel insights.

    In many ways Goethe was ahead of his time.

Leave a Reply