Critical thought 101

[The GM]

The following text comes from Roazzi’s Spirituality of Success, a how to book about business. Roazzi tries to show that science (specifically QP) supports the Science of Success. All grammar errors are his. He quotes physicist John Wheeler to support the claim that you can chart your destiny by ‘willing’ things to happen.

“Let it suffice to say that there is a fundamental difference between the old physics and the new physics…The prime example of this discovery came into being as a result of man’s search to find the elemental particle of life. While searching for the basic building block of life, physicists made some interesting discoveries. In trying to measure the properties of subatomic particles, they found that, depending on what they were measuring, these subatomic particles, or quanta, were sometime particles and sometimes waves. “What’s so astonishing about that?” you might ask. What is astonishing about that is this: A particle has no wave like properties and a wave has no particlelike properties. They are opposites….What determined whether quanta exhibited the properties of a particle or a wave depended on what kind of measuring equipment that the scientists installed. Basically, whatever the scientists wanted it to be, it was. They determined reality.”

And so can you, apparently!
First question: Is the claim that scientists create their own reality in the way described true?
Second question: I have noticed in my own life that things are as you make them, many times. You make your own fun, as it were. Does QP have a damn thing to do w/ this?
Third question: The previous paragraph sound suspiciously pseudoscientific, but I’m pretty new to the whole critical analysis deal. Am I right? Is it hooey, or is what is being described a true scientific event?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

First question: Is the claim that scientists create their own reality in the way described true?

No. Activity at the quantum level is extremely alien to our everyday experiences. Waves and particles are analogies that give us an idea of what's going on. Problem is, sometimes events at the quantum level fit one analogy better than the other. That we do not have a single analogy that fits the bill is our own shortcoming, not evidence of any spooky powers.

Second question: I have noticed in my own life that things are as you make them, many times. You make your own fun, as it were. Does QP have a damn thing to do w/ this?

Only in the same sense that gravity has something to do with it.

Third question: The previous paragraph sound suspiciously pseudoscientific, but I’m pretty new to the whole critical analysis deal. Am I right? Is it hooey, or is what is being described a true scientific event?

Hooey. The trick is in the insertion of "wanted" there towards the end. Even if not hooey, though, would being able to flip everything to waves or particles really be a key to success. It seems like it'd take a whole lot of work to get anything to turn out the way one wanted, macroscopically.

 

[drkitten]

“Let it suffice to say that there is a fundamental difference between the old physics and the new physics…The prime example of this discovery came into being as a result of man’s search to find the elemental particle of life. While searching for the basic building block of life, physicists made some interesting discoveries. In trying to measure the properties of subatomic particles, they found that, depending on what they were measuring, these subatomic particles, or quanta, were sometime particles and sometimes waves. “What’s so astonishing about that?” you might ask. What is astonishing about that is this: A particle has no wave like properties and a wave has no particlelike properties. They are opposites….What determined whether quanta exhibited the properties of a particle or a wave depended on what kind of measuring equipment that the scientists installed. Basically, whatever the scientists wanted it to be, it was. They determined reality.”

First question: Is the claim that scientists create their own reality in the way described true?
Second question: I have noticed in my own life that things are as you make them, many times. You make your own fun, as it were. Does QP have a damn thing to do w/ this?
Third question: The previous paragraph sound suspiciously pseudoscientific, but I’m pretty new to the whole critical analysis deal. Am I right? Is it hooey, or is what is being described a true scientific event?

What is being described was a true scientific event, but the description is sufficiently bad as to qualify as a misrepresentation. Basically, there has been a debate (stretching back as far at least as Newton) as to whether light was composed of waves (like sound), or of little particles. The experimental evidence kept coming up ambiguous -- or, more accurately, when you did an experiment to measure the wave-like attributes of light, you found them. When you did an experiment to measure the particle-like attributes of light, you found them.

Similarly, when you did an experiment to measure the wave-like attributes of particles like electrons, you found them.

So the real problem is that the statement "a particle has no wave like properties and a wave has no particlelike properties" simply isn't true. Everything appears to have a mixture of particle-like and wave-like properties; what appeared (in 1900) to be opposites and contradictory turned out by 1950 to be compatible, but it took a lot of theorizing and new mathematics to make the description of particleish-and-wavelike objects work properly and match the results of experiments.

So, yes, there's a fundamental difference between the new, quantum-based, physics, and the old physics. Yes, scientists can install equipment that detects wave-like properties in what were previously believed to be particles, and vice versa. No, this doesn't mean that scientists can create reality -- they just have a better understanding of what their equipment is actually detecting.

 

[Dymanic]

The following text comes from Dennetts’s Freedom Evolves:

"Engineers, knowing that the safety of thousands of people may depend on the bridge they design, engage in focused exersizes with specific constraints posed to determine that, according to all current knowledge, their designs are safe and sound. When we academics aspire to have a greater impact on the "real" (as opposed to "academic") world, we need to adopt the attitude and habits of these more appled disciplines. We need to hold ourselves responsible for what we say, recognizing that our words, if believed, can have profound effects for good or ill.

Not just that. We need to recognize that our words might be misunderstood, and that we are to some degree just as responsible for likely misunderstandings of what we say as we are for the "proper" effects of our words. The principle is familiar: The engineer who designs a product that is potentially dangerous if misused is just as responsible for the effects of misuse as for the effects of appropriate use, and must do whatever is necessary to ward off dangerous misapplications of the product by the uninitiated."

 

[Suezoled]

*flings brick at author's head* let's see whose reality is stronger...

 

[uruk]

First question: Is the claim that scientists create their own reality in the way described true?
Second question: I have noticed in my own life that things are as you make them, many times.

Scientists do not create their own reality. Wether the results are wave-like or Particle-like depend mostly on the set up of the experiment. The particle has both properties. The scientists are only chosing which property they are observing, not the state of the particle.

 

[epepke]

First question: Is the claim that scientists create their own reality in the way described true?

No.

First of all, particle/wave duality, to borrow a metaphor from Richard Feynman, is really a name for a condition of confusion by early quantum researchers.

Second of all, it was probably also a mistake to speak of the observer. It would be better to say that the act of measurement affects of perturbs the thing being measured. This, of course, is not a new idea and is fairly obvious. Putting a speedometer on a car puts some (albeit slight) drag on the engine and thus changes the speed.

What happens in QM is a) it demonstrates that you cannot get away from this, and b) the way it works is highly counterintuitive.

Here's why it's important, and why it's called quantum. With a speedometer in a car, you can make the speedometer light enough and reduce the drag enough that you can ignore any effects on the speed of the car. One might think that you could do this forever, like having a really, really light speedometer glued to the back of a fly, or one inside a cell, etc. However, when you get small enough, there's a point where you can't do it any more, and there is nothing in the universe you can make smaller and less obtrusive.

For example, in the two-slit experiment, you might want to shine a little light on one of the slits to see if the electron went through that one. It affects the pattern that you get. You might think, well, just make the light dimmer, but when the light is dim enough, it comes in lumps (quanta) like raindrops. And then a lump either comes, in which case it affects the experiment, or it doesn't, in which case it doesn't. You can make the lumps smaller in energy, by using redder light, but that makes for worse resolution, and you can't then resolve it. Just at the point that you think that you could get more information, it fails. QM shows that this limit really exists, and that it exists for everything in the universe.

Furthermore, even though the measuring tools affect the system being measured, all experimenters will see the same patterns in how they do.

Second question: I have noticed in my own life that things are as you make them, many times. You make your own fun, as it were. Does QP have a damn thing to do w/ this?

Some otherwise relatively sane and smart people, such as Roger Penrose, assert that it does, but the majority consensus is that it doesn't.

Third question: The previous paragraph sound suspiciously pseudoscientific, but I’m pretty new to the whole critical analysis deal. Am I right? Is it hooey, or is what is being described a true scientific event?

As new drkitten points out, it's both. The phenomena are quite real; the description is hooey.

 

[tdn]

Re: Re: Critical thought 101

Others have done a far better job answering questions 1 & 3 than I ever could, so I'll stick to question 2: Is life what you make it? Absolutely. Can you choose to put either a negative or positive spin on things that happen to you? No doubt. Can you choose to be happy rather than waiting for happiness to get you? Definitely. Is the example given a stupid one? Positively.

While I don't believe in woo-woo ideas, I am a great believer in the power of positive thinking. Not that I think that your thoughts can erect skyscrapers or bend spoons, but they can certainly enhance the quality of your life.

Here's an example: You ask someone out. She says no. You can choose to interpret that as she thinks you are a toad, therefore you are a toad, therefore you may as well give up on girls entirely and become a monk. Or you can choose to think that maybe she has plans that night, and is truly disappointed that she missed her chance, you stud, you. Of course, getting evidence one way or the other might be desirable, but in lieu of that, why pick the alternative that makes you feel bad?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Re: Re: Re: Critical thought 101

Here's an example: You ask someone out. She says no. You can choose to interpret that as she thinks you are a toad, therefore you are a toad, therefore you may as well give up on girls entirely and become a monk. Or you can choose to think that maybe she has plans that night, and is truly disappointed that she missed her chance, you stud, you. Of course, getting evidence one way or the other might be desirable, but in lieu of that, why pick the alternative that makes you feel bad?

Don't forget that you can use her rejection as your motivation to make millions of dollars selling snake oil, and make her regret the day she passed you by.

 

[tdn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Critical thought 101

Don't forget that you can use her rejection as your motivation to make millions of dollars selling snake oil, and make her regret the day she passed you by.

Well, now you're just stealing my ideas.

 

[The GM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Critical thought 101

TDN said the following:
“Others have done a far better job answering questions 1 & 3 than I ever could, so I'll stick to question 2: Is life what you make it? Absolutely. Can you choose to put either a negative or positive spin on things that happen to you? No doubt. Can you choose to be happy rather than waiting for happiness to get you? Definitely..”

Yeah, everyone did clear up 1 and 3 for me. Took a couple of read throughs before I ‘got’ it, but much thanks. Ya’ll taught me something today. You guys get a thumbs up and a bit of gratitude. So let’s chat about the philosophical part of it for a bit.
TBN says you can choose your positive or negative spin. I agree. However, when does this line of thinking turn into woo-wooisms? For instance, if I’m stuck in a situation of horrible circumstance, and despite the evidence, I choose to have a positive outlook, this is generally seen as a good thing. “Man, she has a crap life, I wouldn’t want that life, but she smiles all the time and always has something nice to say.” Reality says in poor circumstance, you should be miserable. The evidence presented says you should be miserable. When you’re not, you are denying reality, are you not? This isn’t a trick question, guys. I’m really trying to parse this all out.
How is the above described behavior any different than, (as an example) belief in God/Gods? Hard evidence is lacking, yet some choose to believe despite the evidence to the contrary. When a belief in a positive outlook is expressed, it’s well received, when belief in a god is expressed, it’s not well received.
Help me understand?
Thanks.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Critical thought 101

TBN says you can choose your positive or negative spin. I agree. However, when does this line of thinking turn into woo-wooisms? For instance, if I’m stuck in a situation of horrible circumstance, and despite the evidence, I choose to have a positive outlook, this is generally seen as a good thing. “Man, she has a crap life, I wouldn’t want that life, but she smiles all the time and always has something nice to say.” Reality says in poor circumstance, you should be miserable.

Where and how does reality say this?

The evidence presented says you should be miserable. When you’re not, you are denying reality, are you not?

Not necessarily. If I'm poor and lonely, and start to have imaginary friends that keep me company, I'm losing touch with reality. If I'm poor and lonely and I decide to find things to smile about anyway, I'm just keeping my chin up.

How is the above described behavior any different than, (as an example) belief in God/Gods? Hard evidence is lacking, yet some choose to believe despite the evidence to the contrary. When a belief in a positive outlook is expressed, it’s well received, when belief in a god is expressed, it’s not well received.

I'm not certain what you mean by "belief in a positive outlook." One either has a positive outlook or one does not. I don't have to have faith that my outlook is positive. I know it is.

Help me understand?
Thanks.

I'll certainly try, but I admit you've got me a bit confused atm. I'll keep a positive outlook, however.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Critical thought 101

However, when does this line of thinking turn into woo-wooisms? For instance, if I’m stuck in a situation of horrible circumstance, and despite the evidence, I choose to have a positive outlook, this is generally seen as a good thing. “Man, she has a crap life, I wouldn’t want that life, but she smiles all the time and always has something nice to say.” Reality says in poor circumstance, you should be miserable. The evidence presented says you should be miserable. When you’re not, you are denying reality, are you not? This isn’t a trick question, guys. I’m really trying to parse this all out.
How is the above described behavior any different than, (as an example) belief in God/Gods?

Well, first, I'm not convinced that "reality" actually says the things you attribute to her in this case. I don't think that reality really cares whether you are happy or not, any more than reality really cares whether my belt matches my shoes.

But there's also an important philosophical issue here, disguised as a linguistic one. There's a big difference between a simple declarative statement ("I am happy"), and a modal statement of preference ("I should be happy.")

The first is either true or false, in accord with reality or not in accord with reality. In theory, we can test declarative sentences to determine whether or not they are true. On the other hand, the idea that the world "should be" doesn't really have any accord with reality.

In some cases, we can interpret "should" as a prediction ("Bush should win Texas, as all the polls show him well in the lead"), but even a prediction of a false event is still a legitimate part of reality. In other cases, we can interpret "should" as some sort of a moral imperative -- "He should give the money back, but he probably won't, because he's a greedy bastard." Again, what's the reality against which an imperative can be tested? What does it mean for a moral imperative to be true or false?

A statement like "God exists" is declarative, and either true or false. If you believe that God exists, and He doesn't, then you hold a false belief (conversely, if you believe He doesn't exist, you still might hold a false belief). If you believe "I am happy," then that's also true or false. But if you believe "I should be unhappy," how can that be a true (or false) belief? It's not a belief, but an instruction....

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Critical thought 101

When a belief in a positive outlook is expressed, it’s well received, when belief in a god is expressed, it’s not well received.
Help me understand?
Thanks.

new drkitten addressed this quite well, but I'd like to focus. These statements are not parallel. Statements that would be parallel might be the following:

1) I advocate a positive outlook.
2) I advocate a belief in a god.

Both are advocacy of a belief. They can be evaluated by estimating the effects that a positive outlook or a belief in a god has. This is not particularly relevant to the existence of a god, except inasmuch as one might introduce the notion that believing in things for which there is no evidence is a poor strategy.

 

[Gulliamo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Critical thought 101

Reality says in poor circumstance, you should be miserable.

I do not think that 'reality' dictates what we should or should not feel. Feelings are part reactionary and part choice. We simply have to realize that we (almost) always have a choice.

Example: My wife claimed, "Everyone is so miserable on gloomy days." To which I replied, "The kids are not miserable, probably because they do not realize the are 'supposed' to be miserable. They would gladly go jump in the puddles when it rains."

Point being that only you and your choices dictate how you 'should' feel. Your situation (reality) has nothing to do with it.

 

[phildonnia]

...they found that, depending on what they were measuring, these subatomic particles, or quanta, were sometime particles and sometimes waves...

Allow me to recommend Feynmann's "QED" in which he explains basic quantum interactions entirely in terms of particles.

What determined whether quanta exhibited the properties of a particle or a wave depended on what kind of measuring equipment that the scientists installed. Basically, whatever the scientists wanted it to be, it was. They determined reality.”

Let me try to boil this down a bit:

The current theory is that it is impossible to measure anything without bombarding it with particles.

Now obviously, particles behave differently when you bombard them with other particles. Big whoop.

So yeah, if your will causes your hands to install devices that emit particles, then sure, you are altering reality with your mind. This is a funny roundabout way of saying "we can do stuff", and it ignores the fact that stuff happens even when we don't do it.

 

[tdn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Critical thought 101

However, when does this line of thinking turn into woo-wooisms?

Offhand, I'd say it's when your line of thinking diverges from reality so much that it begins to harm you or others. Choosing to interpret things in a way that makes you happier will, by and large, not harm you. As long as you reasonably keep some modicum of reality in your thoughts, you should be OK.

So, I'm in a situation that "should" make me sad. Do I let it? Or do I defy it and choose to be happy anyway? The latter choice at least gives me some control over my own life, rather than being pushed around by the fickle whimsy of life. That's pretty liberating.

Other than that, what everyone else said.