Brett, once again you show a very clear grasp of what you understand and are conveying.
I do envy the concise way you express your knowledge.
I fear that (as has been said by others) that the current generation if QM scientists whose careers and reputations are entwined in pushing the QF aspect of QM (Quantum Fantasies) will have to die off before a new generation of scientists with more open minds emerge.
Your writing makes the difficult accessible. I hope you maintain it.
In discussion in the Yahoo Classical Physics discussion group, I announced that although I was most intrigued with the GUTCP theory (to the extent I grasp it), and wanting so much to replicate the data, I was a skeptic. It felt safe, and Socrates seemed to hold that position, saying that the only knowledge that he had was that he knew nothing. Dr. Mills asked me, "What are you skeptical about?" I was embarrassed because I was not skeptical about anything specifically. I just needed to know more to support my skepticism, I thought, and then quickly realized how ridiculous this was. Skepticism needs an argument.
Obsessed with seeing a firm resolution to the excess heat claims that began in 1989 with "cold fusion", I wondered a lot about how to determining (1) is there really excess heat?, (2) what is causing it?, and (3) how can this be such a difficult matter?, with real certainty. I drew on Michael Polanyi's text for a philosophy of science course from many years earlier. It was a definition of the scientific method and an introduction to epistemology, focused on the difference between explicit and implicit knowledge.
The importance of dwelling on knowing how we think we know was no longer just spurred by an existential crisis (being a victim of an intellectual mass extinction event is not fiction). The challenge became a mystery thriller in real life, as in scientific realism. This recent essay is a very good encapsulation of familiar philosophical territory plus a lot more of what I (we) need to consider before we can see accepted that any determination has been reached.
The casual thinker (like I was) believed that the only thing needed was a repeatable statistically significant empirical result from a robust experiment that was simply interpreted, replicated by competent others, to have an "empirical fact", around which theory had to bend. Mills achieved this in spades, plus voluminous journal publication, yet remains mostly ignored. It seems to be most unstylish to seek what was sought with utmost fervor for thousands of years: a physical model to explain how we believe physics works.
The crisis extents into morality because how can conscience be formed without a reference to what is real? Quite badly, as we have seen. What foundation can exist for intelligence without a reliable means to discern what is real?
The fact that intelligence exists therefore implies that reality is discernable, supporting Descartes.
Measurements which may be made within an apparatus, further abstracted with probability distribution functions are not the same stuff as the basis upon which the experiment is focused. To confuse the thing with the symbol that represents it is a very basic flaw in human thought that was understood to be quite dangerous (and unavoidable) long ago. The representation of the identity of God with a symbol (idol, or even a name) was a mortal sin, which foundational aspect requires no religiosity to understand.
Mach's principle denies the form of molecules, until Atomic Force Magnification made it observable. Did the form not exist prior to the means to perceive it? The damage this principle did to the concept of 'understanding' was a catastrophe. Worse, it contributed to burying the real crisis in physics, still unresolved, a century later.
Brett, once again you show a very clear grasp of what you understand and are conveying.
I do envy the concise way you express your knowledge.
I fear that (as has been said by others) that the current generation if QM scientists whose careers and reputations are entwined in pushing the QF aspect of QM (Quantum Fantasies) will have to die off before a new generation of scientists with more open minds emerge.
Doug Marker (Sydney Australia)
Very well read, and excellent piece. Reminds me of Aristotle style of describing things.
Your writing makes the difficult accessible. I hope you maintain it.
In discussion in the Yahoo Classical Physics discussion group, I announced that although I was most intrigued with the GUTCP theory (to the extent I grasp it), and wanting so much to replicate the data, I was a skeptic. It felt safe, and Socrates seemed to hold that position, saying that the only knowledge that he had was that he knew nothing. Dr. Mills asked me, "What are you skeptical about?" I was embarrassed because I was not skeptical about anything specifically. I just needed to know more to support my skepticism, I thought, and then quickly realized how ridiculous this was. Skepticism needs an argument.
Obsessed with seeing a firm resolution to the excess heat claims that began in 1989 with "cold fusion", I wondered a lot about how to determining (1) is there really excess heat?, (2) what is causing it?, and (3) how can this be such a difficult matter?, with real certainty. I drew on Michael Polanyi's text for a philosophy of science course from many years earlier. It was a definition of the scientific method and an introduction to epistemology, focused on the difference between explicit and implicit knowledge.
The importance of dwelling on knowing how we think we know was no longer just spurred by an existential crisis (being a victim of an intellectual mass extinction event is not fiction). The challenge became a mystery thriller in real life, as in scientific realism. This recent essay is a very good encapsulation of familiar philosophical territory plus a lot more of what I (we) need to consider before we can see accepted that any determination has been reached.
The casual thinker (like I was) believed that the only thing needed was a repeatable statistically significant empirical result from a robust experiment that was simply interpreted, replicated by competent others, to have an "empirical fact", around which theory had to bend. Mills achieved this in spades, plus voluminous journal publication, yet remains mostly ignored. It seems to be most unstylish to seek what was sought with utmost fervor for thousands of years: a physical model to explain how we believe physics works.
The crisis extents into morality because how can conscience be formed without a reference to what is real? Quite badly, as we have seen. What foundation can exist for intelligence without a reliable means to discern what is real?
The fact that intelligence exists therefore implies that reality is discernable, supporting Descartes.
Measurements which may be made within an apparatus, further abstracted with probability distribution functions are not the same stuff as the basis upon which the experiment is focused. To confuse the thing with the symbol that represents it is a very basic flaw in human thought that was understood to be quite dangerous (and unavoidable) long ago. The representation of the identity of God with a symbol (idol, or even a name) was a mortal sin, which foundational aspect requires no religiosity to understand.
Mach's principle denies the form of molecules, until Atomic Force Magnification made it observable. Did the form not exist prior to the means to perceive it? The damage this principle did to the concept of 'understanding' was a catastrophe. Worse, it contributed to burying the real crisis in physics, still unresolved, a century later.