“*” General Remakes Vis-à-vis Your Science-related Questions: I must say I am utterly tickled and tremendously impressed by your genuine and demonstrated interest in popular physics, mathematics, and philosophy of science related topics. Frankly, I would have loved nothing more than to have been able to “satisfactorily” (at least according to my own benchmarks) address some of your ongoing scientific inquiries. Lamentably, the technical confines and the inherently limiting nature of this forum – not to mention perhaps ultimately my own inability to serve as a science expositor – are among the principal reasons that make such an objective/undertaking all but an entirely impractical aspiration. Y!A’s intrinsically entertaining format is simply not conducive to, or accommodating of, “conscientious” rejoins about cutting edge research. How can anyone, for instance, offer a science enthusiast a site where s/he could become privy to the continuing findings of research in progress. And even if such a site existed, there is always the issue of incomprehensibility of the underlying language (mathematical or otherwise) - a truly daunting snag for the layperson to overcome. I assure you; it is NEVER about acting: evasive, pretentious, intellectually cute, maliciously ambiguous, or otherwise “hard to get”. It is about the reality of a highly technical and specialized field of study with a nearly impenetrable language of its own that many a times is dolefully inaccessible to all (professionals included) but the very few who happen to have dedicated their entire lives to the endeavor. … Though the overlap/interplay between philosophy and science is patently evident to everyone (and perhaps that being part of the problem), in reality, their “marriage” is not always a comfortable or even a compatible arrangement - at least not without a more operative linguistic base for dialogue. That said, I am not one to subscribe to a derisory strategy of offering half-truths and misinformation and promptly passing them as “answers” to reflective scientific inquiries with embedded, and at times highly controversial, philosophical substance/charge. Admittedly, some of the questions here (e.g. the falling over optical illusion effect of an overflowing round glass cup) are rudimentary enough to lend themselves to persuasive/straightforward replies. Whereas others are by far more convoluted and complex than even the questioner him-/herself might have initially recognized. In other words, some questions are so elementary, in fact, that one should not feel obliged to regurgitate/reproduce the already adequate answers allover again, whilst the fair treatment of others is so utterly beyond the limited scope of this medium that any attempt at providing a diligent answer becomes almost an exercise in futility. In all, the best anyone can offer on those intricate questions, is NOT per se an “answer” but perhaps valuable pointers to assist the questioner with his/her own further investigations. Anyway, at least, that’s what I’ll hope to do in such cases.
With respect to the question at hand:
1- Look into Bohr’s Principal of Complementarity (of which Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal can be considered a subset/specific case).
2- There are a number of wonderful scholarly treatments of Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, as well as some layman-oriented (i.e. non-mathematical) treatments that can be of potential help.
3- Look deeper into EPR (EPRB) Paradox, Hidden Variables, Bell’s Inequality, quantum entanglement, Schrödinger’s Cat, their philosophical implications and related issues.
4- Look into other Quantum Reality issues and articles.
5- Avoid further complicating the issue by concurrently introducing theological notions of faith (i.e. God), into an already complex picture – at least in a first approximation.
6- Consider examining the spacetime backdrop (dimensionality) against which physics is ultimately formulated.
7- Objectively reexamine the question itself for its potential “ill-defined” character – not always something that sounds philosophically intriguing is actually a meaningful question.
Anyway, all that would constitute a good start.
P.S. "*" I answer a light-hearted question with a light-hearted response, but when it comes to more serious questions:
1- I always consider the best interests of the questioner first and foremost.
2- I will not answer open-ended/controversial/evolving questions by shoving my personal opinions down the questioner’s ears.
3- I will provide enough objective tips and pointers for the asker to embark on a journey of his/her own without being necessarily misled by biased opinions (my own included).
4- I recognize the space and technical limitations of this site (e.g. helping someone with a computer virus problem – as important and useful as in fact that maybe – is one thing, considering the philosophical implications of basic quantum mechanical principals in even a remotely satisfactory fashion on Y!A is a whole different issue.) ... Not to mention, here one has to always watch out for not being accused of “Chatty” (and loose interpretations thereof) conduct.
5- Not everything in science (e.g. certain mathematical constructs and objects, conclusions, etc.) is always so easily reducible to “words”. And even when they are the “jargon” is usually alien to most people and hence could serve as a source of additional confusion.
6- It is utterly unrealistic to assume that a forum like Y!A is the suitable place for highly technical scientific considerations, and in non-mathematical language no less.
7- As a case in point: Consider my honorable intentions in providing a conscientious justification for my herein mentioned stance. Even at that, if I understood your comments correctly, I seem to have miserably failed, imagine the rest!
· 1 decade ago