From this point of view -- ontic.vs.epsitemic -- any discussion of Not yet scientigically understood theory, such as QM would appear as one's desire to SHOW OFF...

This is another totally misunderstood idea.


When we speak about 'understanding' a theory, we need to think about this for a moment because it means two entirely different thigns.

For example, Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical description of observations that have been made in experiments. In includes observed quantities such a Plank's Constant, Pi, and other mathematical quantitize that were obtained from drirect measurment. Yet, ultimately the "Theory" is a mahtematical description.

To say that we don't understand this "Theory" would be wrong. That would be the same as saying that don't understand our own mathmematics. Clearly we understand the mathematical construct.

When we say that we don't understand Quantum Mechanics, what we actualy mean is that we don't intuitively understand how this mathematical description can work in the real world, especially if we are attempting to visualize it in terms of a continuum with cause and effect taking place at every infinitesmal point along the way.

However, the mathematical "Theory" actually states that such a continuum picture would be wrong! The mathematical "Theory" actually states that things take place in quantum leaps of discrete and abrupt changes that can only be described in terms of probabilistic outcomes.

So when we say that we can't understand "Quantum Mechanics" all we are truly saying is that we refuse to accept it!

Clearly we can indeed understand the mathematics!

The mathematics clearly says that things happen discretely in quantum jumps and that during those quantum jumps information (states of manifestation) changes discretely and abruptly according to laws of probabilities.

What's so hard about understanding that?

Clearly we can and DOunderstand the mathematical "Theory"

We understand the theory of Quantum Mechanics. We wrote it!

What we can't understand is how the world can be this way!

But is that truly the same as not understanding the 'Theory'?

We want to understand the world in terms of continuous unbroken change that always occurs in infinitesimal steps of cause and effect that we can always follow indefintitely forever and ever.

But the "Theory" of Quantum Mechanics clearly states that the world simply doesn't work that way. It works in discontinuous quantum jumps that can only be described in terms of probability.

So do we truly not "understand" the theory?

Or are we just refusing to accept it because we actually DO understand what it's saying and we just can't frigging believe it!

I would agree.

That is why I avoid at all costs disusing things in terms of QM, when it is anything but clear that it should be discussed in terms of QM.

James, darling, you're "BEAUTIFUL" as always!!!

Clearly, your's is an "EGG-shaped" head -- contrary to some of the other members whose head is shaped as a SQUARE!!!

And, for the reason of avoiding future arguments and name-calling, I suggest you find in your heart enough of self-respect for IGNORING the hirtful comments of the Square-headed members!

Though you may be right, Jeremy, but, on the other hand, in a thread titled "Intro to QM", it is Not allowed talking about anything else...* * * * * * * *

*** Therefore, it might be more productive visiting some other threads... (if you know what I mean)

Clearly he's speaking in terms of intuition here.

To claim that he didn't understand the mathematical theory would be utterly absurd.

Einstein once claimed something along the lines of this:

"I really would be happy to only understand the electron a little better..."

Thank you Jane.

I'm not the least bit concerned about the primitive animalistic attacks of immature people. I'm fully aware that there are people reading these threads, (like you ) who understand what I'm saying.

Just a little bit ago I recieved two emails from forum members who thanked me for the insight, so it's not like I'm working in a vacuum here.

I cannot really speak for Feynman, only quote what he said, so I will not try to interpret that . . .

But let me ask you, do you understand the math James?

According to the QM interpretation of smiless, it is really equivalent to

... What was your question, Jeremy?

I believe I do. The key to understanding the mathematics is to simply accept that Planck's constant is real.

All that the mathematics of QM is saying is that when a quantum of information undergoes a transformation it must do so as a 'quanta', not as a continuum.

Once that's accepted then what's hard to understand?

If you ask me to explain what's going on in terms of a classical intuitive continuum of infinitely divisible steps of causality, I'll tell you two things:

1. No, I can't explain it that way.

2. The mathematics of QM doesn't even describe it that way.

If you accept the math, then you must accept what it says.

Don't ask me to 'explain' it in intuitive terms of a continuum with infinite cause and effect, because that's not what the mathematics is saying.

So, yes, I believe I do understand the mathematics.

But that doesn't mean that I understand "how it can be like that".

In fact, allow me to quote a little bit more of precisely what Dr. Feynman actually said:

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Dr. Richard P. Feynman

As far as I'm concerned it's crystal clear that Richard Feynman was indeed addressing an intuitive understanding of QM and not a mathematical understanding of the theory.

So I don't need to speak for Dr. Feynman. He made it perfectly clear what he was addressing himself.

After all, what do you think he was referring to when he said, "How can it be like that?"

Like what?

Well, like the mathematics of QM says of course!

So clearly he's assuming that you already understand what the mathematics is saying and now you're trying to make intuitive sense of it.

As far as I'm concerned the mathematics itself is already saying that no 'intuitive' sense can be made of the theory. Especially if our very notion of 'intuition' requires that we describe it in terms of a causal continuum. Clearly the mathematics of QM itself denies this!

That's never going to be possible. The only way that could be possible is if the mathematics of QM is wrong. But then the theory would be wrong and the whole thing would fall.

How 'the world' can be what way?

It's all good. Hey, how about those FRACTALS, huh? By studying the fractal patterns mathematically in nature is the new trend in finding disease, early cancer detection, and in calculating quantities such as how much CO2 is used by a rain forest.

Mother...? What are you doing here?

Do you understand the mathematics of QM?

That was the question. Here is one fallacious non-answer.



Planck's constant does not represent the totality of QM. Believing that it is 'real' does not, in any way, constitute reason to believe that one understands the mathematics of QM.

I could convince my child that Planck's value is real. He would accept it as such.

Does that mean that he understands the mathematics?

That statement is logical nonsense!

What exactly are you calling a 'quantum of information'?

A quantum of information must transform as a quanta?

What are you trying to say, because here is what it means literally...

A single piece must transform as a plural piece, not as continuous extant of unending nature.

WTF does that even mean? Moreover, where - in QM - can you support this. It is utter nonsense.



What quantum 'transformation' are you describing here, or attempting to describe? From particle to wave? From unobserved to observed?

A very interesting topic :)

This thread is like a train wreck. What a shame.

I would like to read your input on QM metalwing...

It would be an interesting contrast, I believe.

Would you give your thoughts?