...the thing with the electron is because it's a fallacy to say it is in one place unless you make a measurement (at which point, there is not an infinite number of positions. There is exactly 1). As for the multiverse bit, the vibe I'm getting from you reminds me of the 'one electron theory'. The idea with this theory is that there is only 1 electron in the whole universe, but it is sort of a 'time traveler'. That is why there appears to be more than 1. The reasoning is that electrons don't directly interact with each other and every electron is basically the same (spin is the only difference between them, which can have only 2 values. I'm not sure how the theory handles that). The math also seems to suggest this.

Heres the thing with that (and I have a similar stance for your multiverse ideas, which is why I brought this up): Information is not carried from when the electron behaves as if it is electron A and at the same time behaves as if it is electron B. It is this lack of conservation of information that, in my mind, means they should be treated as seprate particles. And everything works out fine if you assume theres more than 1 electron. If you were to take a base ball, erase an autograph from it, re-string it, redo the filler or whatever (ie erase the history), and then send it back in time so that they were both on the field at the same time... I would say they are different balls. You might have started with the same ball, but you destroyed it and rebuilt it and erased the histroy from it. At that point, it is a new ball.... to me.

No, it's not. It's infinite when it has a wave function. When it doesnt, there is a single possibily. There is no both. It is one or the other at any point in time.

I still dont get the whole "We didn't know Z before, but now we know Z. Therefore, J could/could not be true." thing.

btw, I did some calculations for my neutrino+quantum tunneling idea: if I'm right, 1.1% of the distance is being 'skipped' via quantum tunneling, which is low enough that I think it could have escaped notice until now (though I can't be sure). It might just be late, but I can't think of a reason why the chance for the neutrino to tunnel wouldn't also be about 1.1%.

As to your post;

The above is true. What you are saying when you say:

The reason is that when the cat is both dead and alive; that means there is a wave function for both possibilities. The electron has 'infinite' possibilites due to the nature of space and the possibilities of the cat's 'aliveness' has to do with the nature of life. Until an observation is made (note: persons need not be involved), the object is in a superposition of all possibilities. At this point there is no 'single possibility'. When you open the box, the superpostition drops and a single possibility remains. At this point, there is no 'infinite possibility'.

As for the rest... I don't do philosophy.

Analog is infinite, digital is finite.

That is why phonograph records and tapes will always be superior to CD/DVD's. Too bad the latest generation has no experience with analog realities.

With each 'advancement' of technology that moves away from the analog, there is a definite loss in quality.

There has to be a balance--but there also has to be an openness to new ideas.  "Pure" Science can (and has) become a religion of its' own to many of its practitioners.  I'm not talking about scientists vs. the layman but about scientists within their own community.

Look at the global warming issue where some facts were stretched and some viewpoints  were censured and kept from being published.  It's true that nothing seems to have been purely fabricated or error introduced so grievously to have derailed previous scientific examination of climate data...but on the other hand, many scientists were completely unapologetic because they were certain they were right.  Their certitude led them to allow a lot of slack in their professional behavior that wouldn't be tolerated in many other fields or industries. The safeguards of integrity really softened in a big way--even though no serious harm was done...all because a group of peers had dismissed their opponent's views.

Many a good experiment and theory has been rejected out of hand by the scientific community at large only to years (or even decades)  later come back and be proven true. But in the years between, the holder's of the established view blocked publication or even discussion of the new ideas and made real efforts to derail the credentials and careers of those holding those views.  This has happened in the fields of fractals, string theory and Mars exploration not to mention many other situations.

So adherence to a self-proclaimed scientific dogma is no guarantee of unbiased truth in research and openness.

I'll disagree on Einstein-- I think he was handled well.  He was not opposed by the entire scientific community--just a handful of very prominent figures and he was given a chance to air and defend his views--which he was able to do and then his views were acceptable for presentation.  Other scientists have not fafed as well and we'll never know how many walked away with ideas that were right because their careers and reputations were threatened--not the strength of their arguments.

Hawkings, Einstein's, Bohr's and the like should  not have their ideas instantly accepted as fact but neither should they have to fight for their lives for having them and wanting them published.

I had a roomate once with an off-the-charts IQ.  He had taught himself Mandarin Chinese at the age of four (in an English-only household) and had a photographic memory along with an intuitive understanding of math.  His Achilles heel however was that he was absolutely unbending in his interests and completely disregarded others who did not share his exact studies with the same level of intellectual ability.  The end result was he could not function in life.  He could not form meaningful relationships, he was incapable of considering anything in fields that did not interest him and all these things were justified in his mind by the supremacy of his own intellect.  His intelligence was useless because he was incapable of integrating any benefit from it into the rest of the world.

Professional science can be like him sometimes and their needs to be a humility in the process that allows some experimentation and consideration of "improbables".

I agree on your views regarding experiments and "philosophizing"...yet sometimes a philosophic insight can lead to scientific investigation--that is in fact how much early science was advanced.  You need to be able to have both views together.

I think we're actually agreed mostly on the above but philosophy sometimes presents the concept that prompts science to proceed to investigate (as Einstein's thinking prompted him).

It shouldn't be a theocracy of idealists dictating to scientists what to and not investigate for any reason or whim but science should always be willing to consider looking at the speculations of philosophers if they may have merit and are in some way genuinely examinable.

Here's a good example:Dr. Bem's ESP Experiment

A large segment of society claimed to believe in having had or witnessed examples of extrasensory perception and many have claimed for centuries to have had the same experiences.  So a scientist investigated and tested some aspects with research.

This is not a direction that would have been produced as an outcome of continually developed research already at work--it's a direct example of non-scientists directing science to investigate.

Science needs some openness to this sort of prompt.  Now if it had involved spending 40% of the gdp and stalling cancer research for the next five years it would be a different proposition.  So--of course--there needs to be some compelling interest but the fact that people are interested is sometimes enough to justify some effort.

Another example of how science can miss something is here: New Way to make Steel Stronger

Steel manufacturing is considered a mature science and it was presumed there were no further major breakthroughs possible within the industry--it had reached it's technological limits (barring new materials being used).  Researchers would never have looked for this but the manufacturer's experience and intuition led him to figure it out--something a methodical and regimented experimenter would never have done.

I just grabbed the first article I found on the steel but as a follow up, his process was taken out of state to Ohio I believe and duplicated there at a university.  I had read a brief followup where they described what they thin k is happening and it does appear to be effective as a principle--not as a fluke.  (He doesn't have magic ore or a enchanted furnace--he buys ore on the market like everyone else).

Methods similar to his (but not the same) had been tried a few times but it was determined they were scientifically "not possible" for producing an effect so no one tried anymore.

And you're right, the guy was being scientific when he tested and measured his results--but he initiated the test based on his gut--not evidence and despite the fact that all the experts at that time said what he was doing wouldn't matter.

I actually am not a "believer" in the ESP stuff but I'm not a disbeliever either.  No problem with me if someone wants to work at proving its true and seemingly positive results don't threaten me.  Would everyone who believes in telekinesis please raise my hand right now.

I am familiar with Feynman's speech and agree with both you and he there.  But there are counterpoints to that as well.  The American medical scene for decades dismissed all forms of herbal and holistic remedies--such as Chinese herbal medicines, aloe vera testimonials and chiropractic patient's endorsements.  Turns out, all of them had something to them.  Sure, there were quacks, and superstitions and ridiculous beliefs as to how or why the worked but mixed within were some efficacious treatments and medicines.

I can testify to aloe vera for example.  When it first began to be touted, the AMA called it a placebo and cautioned against using it on wounds and burns for fear of infection or allergic reaction.  They did nothing to really study it at first and then the first studies were simply to "prove they didn't work"--they were bad science.

I had just come back from overseas and knew none of this...not to mention I didn't even  know what aloe vera was at the time.  I was cooking bacon and grease splattered very badly on my hand leaving a half-dollar sized blister.  My aunt snapped the tip off a plant and smeared sap from it onto the burn--while I called her crazy and tried to jerk my hand away.  The burn vanished almost instantly.  How did professional medical doctors miss that?  Bias and presumption influenced by the "accepted thinking of the day".  Afterwards, I heard an interview with an AMA representative cautioning people about trying things like aloe vera "just because someone said it worked".  I nearly fell from my chair laughing.

This sort of thing is the result of too much unquestioning skepticism.  The sort that dismisses the need to examine or test because they "know it can't be right".  Scientific groups have a record of building heavy institutional beliefs that just need someone to come along every now and then and whack at with a sledgehammer.

At the end of WWII the Russians were playing catch-up with the US technologically.  They began by stealing and copying anything from us they could get their hands on.  In areas where they lacked infrastructure or experience, they'd often tell their scientists, "Find a way to do that!"--whether it was possible or not.  The Soviets developed several things out of necessity that we had assumed couldn't be done any way than how we had learned to do them.  A notable example is the supersonic torpedo.  their's didn't steer well and wasn't practical but until in just the last few years their torpedoes had twice the speed and warhead of our own here in the US.  The science they discovered is now just starting to be used practically and will revolutionize undersea warfare--all with "impossible" technology.

There has to be a venue somewhere for the intuitive or desperate guess theory.  Without this, stagnation occurs or you have to wait for a lab accident someone notices the results of.

Think about why so many breakthroughs occur during wars--experimenters are willing to try things in peacetime they would never do.

I was just waiting to get the last word...

It's ok--it's been fun and it gives me something to do when I am waiting on software to do it's stuff.

By the way--everything you said about medicine being cobbled together over time is true of science as well--and there is medical science.

I can attest to aloe vera.  I was trying to knock my aunt's hand away becasue I thought she was nuts--no placebo effect there.  The blister literally disappeared within several seconds.

I'll close with this:  In the movie Contact with Jodie Foster, she meets aliens in a spaceship and spends time on an alien world with them--but to everyone on earth it looks like she went nowhere.  At congressional hearings investigating why so much money was spent and nothing happened, she describes her experience--and then when questioned admits she wouldn't believe it either if it hadn't happened to her.

There are times when individuals discover or realize the truth of something before pure science can.  Science tells you basically, "Experiments or it never happened!".  Science is content to glance at a claim and decide based on how plausible it seems to "science" whether or not to investigate it.  An individual who has had the experience will know it needs investigating--whether science gets it or not.  Those individuals are usually the ones who bring breakthroughs--not always, but often enough to be important and worth consideration.

FYI--I'm a straight medical prescription kind of guy.  No new age-y stuff for me.

Thanks for bumping this thread Sinperium!  I hadn't before had the privilege of witnessing this astounding spectacle of debating and different but possibly mutually-true viewpoints.  Btw: I didn't know that you were colour-blind either.

I think it's useful to be able to shift between skepticism and creativity-based thinking, and evidence and "what if?" based theories.  It is very useful to be able to do both, and shift as necessary, or when it seems fun , but this thread is the most fun I have enjoyed on debating for a long time.

Did we have a SW vs. ST debate? I dont remember that...

In any case, I think we can both agree that there is sound in space.

Now, if you'll excuse me... my Star Wars: The Old Republic launcher just finished updating

Probably more like 'feeling the elephant's trunk' and describing it as a well endowed camel. .... ....

I don't mean to restart the conversation, but I stumbled here from recent posts and have to point out that for example that steel hardening discovery could've just as well been eventually discovered once we understand the fundamentals of material sciences down to the molecular level better.

Same goes for medicin; the reason why medicin has a tough time being scientific is that biologial systems are still much too complex for us to dissect with deterministic accuracy with scientific theory. We're not there yet. And that's the only reason why the more philosophical approaches can be useful; they can be used to cut corners, but they are hardly a requirement for discoveries and often work against science.