Karl

That's how I roll. Combined with an advanced form of nuclear fusion I have all the doughnuts I could ever eat.

Hmmmmm \mathbf{a}(t) = \frac{d^2 R}{dt^2} \begin{bmatrix} \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \sin (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix} + 2 \frac {dR}{dt} \omega \begin{bmatrix} -\sin(\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix} - \omega^2 R(t) \begin{bmatrix} \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \sin (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix} =2s\omega \begin{bmatrix} -\sin(\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix} -\omega^2 R(t) \begin{bmatrix} \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \sin (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix} =2s\ \omega \ \mathbf{u}_{\theta}-\omega^2 R(t)\ \mathbf{u}_R \ . Actually that was pretty good. I'm only a couple of weeks off a universal theory of everything ;-)

You are a cheeky sod 'link to an article you won't read' :-) I do read them if I can, but usually they are so horribly maths dense all my neutrinos fall out. I'm preferring to stick to economics instead. I do enjoy the theoretical side of physics but it's not where I would choose to spend much time. It's only when it gets linked into new age beliefs that it intersects with philosophy and perks my ears up.

Well they all are. I remember when the first turbo charges were fitted to cars, after that every damned thing that made things faster was referred to as turbo. Anyway: this is what I was talking about in the beginning. I'm a dumbo who has never read anything about vortex spins at the speed of light, but that's what I had imagined. Hmm maybe this consciousness thing is real after all-I just think it and then a paper appears related to it ;-) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1656.pdf

That makes more sense to me than quantum theory.

Right, but that has been true of a million things for which we once formulated theories which later turned out to be incorrect, but the maths seemed to work well enough. We can say a light switch is a quantum device, but it isn't quantum mechanics that discovered it, but it certainly tries to explain it. I don't like 'spookiness' in theories, you can call me 'a stick in the mud' or a Luddite as much as you like. To me it's like one mistake is compounding another and there is now so much invested in the theory that it nobody risks trying to refute it. Even in my life time I remember centrifugal force being replaced by centripetal and the change in current flow direction in a circuit. All the maths worked fine but the theories were incorrect. So, for the moment it's the best explanation we have and the maths works sufficiently well to make design possible, however it's inherent spookiness has found a cross over into everything and anything. My mum bought into a quantum energy egg-who's is to say she is wrong in a land in which probability is everything.

I think the only paradox is the one about funding.

And don't 'believe' something just because it's outlandish. Go on and show me that a bicycle is a fish and Douglas Adams was right all along.

I don't say 'it's all wrong'. I ask questions and probe based on the few things I know and what reasoning ability I have. If you say a bike is a tree then I shall disagree. I don't like contradictory things and neither does nature. Should I just stand in awe of the amazing theories that have yet to show any authentic usefulness. I don't understand an atom bomb, but I can certainly see its affects, same with gravity, electricity, magnetism and light. I am the complete antithesis to the guy saying Brawndo has electrolytes-the problem is that this is what you are saying and I'm asking if it can be right, but you think I'm stupid for asking because 'science knows that Brawndo has electrolytes'.

It's not just in one area. It really doesn't matter to me if light is particle, wave or Swiss cheese. It's just causally interesting. I'm not sure we have even solved the old spinning bucket of water even after all these years. I wish you would stop with the 'aristotle' thing. He took logic to a new level of coherent understanding but I don't look to him to solve every puzzle in the universe. I'm no more attached to Aristotle than I am to the Tao. See, newtons proofs aren't contradictions and I suppose, neither were Aristotles theories even though wrong and that's where I'm coming from. If we allow contradiction then we aren't going to get anywhere except a world in which logic has no place at all. It's Alice in Wonderland where everything adds up to anything else. It's not the theories that are the problem-although I probably will never understand the maths-it's this consistent half truth type science which no longer seems capable of actually proving anything beyond some percentage or other. It's like the Bosun Higgs particle. At enormous cost and effort we have discovered exactly what ? Everything seems to promise some fantastic thing will come of it, but nothing ever does. The scientists go off to spend ever greater amounts of tax payer funding on some new particle chase having determined that the half truth just discovered now means they have the need to go off chasing the next. What happened to the scientist in the shed who developed thongs that had almost immediate significance ?

We have got into this mind rot of believing contradictions are fine. If we can't Resolve them, then we resort to quantum explanations and try and entangle consciousness with matter in an easily interchangeable manner. People seem to want to believe it's true. It seems to me a kind of religious surrender. The grand quantum religion. I liked it better when chariots pulled the Sun across the sky.

Several times.

The point is that it doesn't matter. I can accept the subjective along with the perceptive. If you can be at peace with things as they are then why get concerned about things as they might be ? It doesn't really matter what light is, what stubbed the toe or if any of it is real, not real or both at the same time. I know you are going to dismiss it, but I experienced that same thing. Everything being both there and not there at the same time. For a long time it was very novel, it seemed to offer some special insight or way of being. I kind of floated through life. I chose not to continue. I can't say one is right or one is wrong, just that there didn't seem much benefit in being both.

You think it's generated by our consciousness and is not independent of us. You believe we can't prove it because we are only our consciousness proving its reality. I understand what you think, but you cannot offer any proof that it is true, where as, if you stub your toe then you have to stub it on something. How you perceive the experience is most likely unique, but it is broadly similar to the rest of us. Then you have to deal with these stubborn realities wether you believe them to be manifestations or not. You can go through your whole life arguing that they are simply conscious creations, but it won't make a jot of difference as you must deal with the world as it is and face the same problems and realities as the rest of us.

It's only weird if you expect x and get y. If they begin with the wrong premise and then things get worse. Now everything is quantum this and quantum that. Bring back Tesla I say. I don't like dualities because nature doesn't have them. Either light is a particle, a wave, or none of them and it is something else instead. I plump for the third. Of course I'm not a scientist so WTF do I know, I'm just observing and thinking its a croc.

Or not. Maybe we just anticipate what we think it is we are looking for and that turns into an error of observation rather than an error attributable by the action of the observation.

It's entirely different. It is the difference between our perception of reality and reality itself. That isn't in dispute. However existence exists regardless of our perception of it.

That works both ways. If we expect to see something then that may be how we are interpreting it. We feed our bias into an experiment and come out with bad conclusions. The answer is to repeat the experiment until the error is reduced. Your conclusion is to accept its a form of magic and resolve it internally.

Or that energy from a photon goes through both slits whilst the photon itself only goes through one ?

It depends what you mean by 'independently'. An ice particle is most definitely has independent identity from of water or other ice particles, but it doesn't exist independently of them. A photon is energy, it doesn't exist independent of energy, but it remains separate. The wise seem to struggle to breath underwater or in outer space.

Our reality or reality ? Sounds like the old mystic 2 step.

what evidence do you have that our intellect directly alters the behaviour of objects that exist independently from us ?

Steam-water-ice are all real even in a changed state. Personally I don't believe in duality of particles vs waves. It's one or the other but not both.

They are people who don't want to stay where they were. Neither did I presume they were all penniless, but some are economic refugees who just want a better life. I don't know how we should treat them, but I know we shouldn't have been bombing, destabilising and carving up their countries, or funding tyrants to rule them.

I would agree. It has been streamlined, but I suppose if the only business is shipping humans about, then supply and demand will we see to it that there are sufficient shippers looking to take refugees money and advertising their services.