Re: Leibniz vs Newton


Michael Hell wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Michael Hell wrote:

I have an idea of what it should mean.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm

That is a halfway decent primer.

If you actually knew what an observer is in the physics sense, you
wouldn't be talking about simulating an observer or *** like that.


The article begins by talking about the ideal "objective observer", but
after talking about relativity and quantum, it ends with:

"Observers in modern physics truly become participants in their
observation, whatever that observation might be."

Welcome to quantum mechanics, enjoy your stay.

This is fundamentally true for quantum mechanics - there is no
ambiguity. You are neither the first or the last to have issue with the
role of an observer in quantum mechanics.



He seems to be asserting that modern physics is requiring a completely
subjective observer.

You don't know what you are talking about.

In quantum mechanics, the mere act of observing a particle which is in
a superposition of states *destroys* the state by making the particle
choose.

There is no way around it, no matter how hard you handwave or babble.
Whatever theory that replaces QM is going to have to reproduce QM at
some appropriate limit.



I think the only way to make a theory based on a completely subjective
observer is using a model of particle physics to recreate and contain a
functioning neuronal network with instruments such as eyes.

Far greater minds than yours have been uncomfortable with quantum
mechanics, and have failed. They were better equipped and knew what
they were doing - you are poorly equipped since you haven't actually
seen what modern physics is and you have no idea what you are doing.

Quantum mechanics is empirically true to fantastic precision. You might
want to spend some time studying physics so you understand what you are
up against.


That would be something never done before, and would allow us a never
before seen view of the modeled phenomena.

But you have no idea what the phenomena are!

Your actual education in physics is limited to what you were taught in
highschool plus whatever you have read in popularizations. You have no
idea what type of stuff modern physics contends with these days.

What you are doing is the functional equivalent of a child with
tinker-toys telling a structural engineer, with absolute certainty,
that he doesn't know how to build a bridge.



[snip]
In your previous postings from early 2003 you explained you haven't
seen physics since highschool. Where you attempt to talk about
contemporary physics you often make mistakes and are confused by simple
concepts.

True. That's why I come here. To find the shortcomings in my knowledge.

Incorrect - you come here to push your philosophical babble.

That is true too.

I do that because I think its interesting in light of the grand physics
problem of our day.

A few others have agreed.

....and how many of these people who think they agree with you have the
same level of non-education as yourself?



[snip]
Oh, so you are going to take a crack at physics now that you are
retired?

Like I mentioned before: I envision the ideas of Leibniz taking over
the physics world as neuroscience and computing advance.

Leibniz has been dead for nearly 300 years.

You are confused if you think he has anything left to contribute,
ESPECIALLY to a field like computing.


I don't expect to have a role in it.

I don't expect you to either.


I am just looking for other critical thinkers, particularly those with
a working knowledge of physics, to discuss this with.

You aren't looking for "critical thinkers", you are looking for someone
to pat you on the head and say "that's a good idea!". You aren't going
to get that from anyone who is familiar with you.





[snip]
You struggle with concepts taught in introductory physics courses yet
you think you can reinvent physics using philosophy and catchphrases?


It may seem unlikely to you, but its not impossible.

Actually, it is quite impossible. You don't even have a concept of what
you are attempting to replace.

I have a vague concept.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Get an education before you start trying to re-invent an entire field.


However, there is no proof that it is impossible.

You just believe it to be the case.

Damn right I do.

Someone who doesn't even have a firm grasp of what is taught in high
school has no hope in hell in replacing *anything* in physics short of
performing an experiment that shits all over current theory.


Or desire it, anyways.

You snipped this:

This is the issue: You don't know what the *** you are talking about.

You think you can re-invent physics even though your last exposure to
physics was from high school.

You haven't seen modern physics in any capacity other than whatever you
read in popularizations. You have no idea why physics is where it is
today. Hell, you don't even know *where* physics is.

.

Quantcast