Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
First, regarding physicists, I might be simplifying their non-intuition towards quantum mechanics greatly - I am not in that soup really. But I think that the non-local phenomena (entaglement, EPR experiments, Bell's theorem) are still baffling to their intuitions. The best course is to go forward constructing new gadgets and consequences, it appears.

My understanding is that empirical intuition is based on "deja vu" (including genetic deja vu). If you have a phenomenon which is unlike anything you ever experienced before, there comes a problem of satisfactory understanding. Quantum mechanics is difficult because it is hard to model it by anything else. (As regarding cellphones - a trivial remark is that most people are just happy to understand how to use them.)

But intuition may come not only from the empirical lower circuits, but from higher circuits as well. Say, in "Quantum Psychology" RAW claims complete equivalence of quantum mechanics and psychology (starting from subjectivity or experiences or measurements, the "maybe" logic, and going up to Big-bang non-locality against highest perceptions). He appears to be teasingly exhaggerating here: by his own philosophy, "complete equivalence" is an Aristotelian notion, not to be measured. Any model map is not the whole territory, whether we model quantum mechanics by deep psychology or vice versa. My rational supposition at the moment is that the higher circuits perceive some general but deep patterns beyond usual empirical experience, and quantum mechanics fits in those patterns (and deep cognitive psychology fits those pattenrs as well). It would follow then that higher circuits may help a lot to understand quantum mechanics "fully".

The 3rd circuit (if well programmed) is able to make assumptions even without practical results, just for a matter of thought experiments. I find myself in no difficulty to keep a few sets of assumptions about ongoing events (if I am really interested in those events), and adjust plausibility of various assumptions with new facts. But my habit to "keep options open" appears to be a drawback for corporate purposes, I was told.

Regardin Cheney's manipulation of the 3rd circuit, yeah, it works. It is admirable to teach people to detect bullshit, but then the problem appears to be that bullshit detection is applied inconsistently. For example, in 2000 Gore's positions were regurlarly perceived (}or presented) as bullshit, while Bush was treated admirably, exactly because bullshit detection was directed straight against Gore and away from Bush - by big efforts of the conservative-libertarian talnking heads in the media.

For the beginning, someone has to call Cheney's bullshit. It is amazing how conservatives were successful in ridiculing liberals' concerns while getting away with their own "fearsome" issues, while liberals were unable to do anything opposite.

by das monde on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 11:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series