On 3/28/2010 1:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Maybe you could argue that science makes the *assumption* that
>> measurements
>> correspond to reality, but as long as there's no evidence of the
>> contrary,
>> there's no reason to think otherwise. Someone could argue this *is*
>> faith.
>
> I think what makes it faith is the behavior in the face of
> contradictions to what one has faith in.
>
> The behavior when showing a religious person things that tend to
> contradict their faith is generally denial and looking for some way to
> show you've misinterpreted their holy works or some such. The classic
> example is if you show someone where the bible says God is evil, they
> will tell you that you're misinterpreting the bible.
>
> If you tell a scientist that you have measurements that don't match
> theory, the first assumption is that you measured incorrectly. The
> second assumption is that the theory is wrong. I don't think there's
> ever an assumption that reality is conspiring against you.
>
>> Well, hypotheses are not necessarily taken for fact in science. It's
>> hypothesized that humans aren't the first intelligent life form in the
>> Universe. However, it's just that: A hypothesis.
>
> Sure. Those were just examples of the kind of "what are we missing"
> ideas. Nobody says "Well, it's settled, we're the only intelligent life
> forms, unless we find evidence otherwise." Instead, it's almost always
> "we're pretty sure they're out there, we just don't know why we aren't
> seeing them."
>
> I think scientists are willing to be proved wrong about a lot of stuff.
> But I think there's a handful of things that regardless of the amount of
> evidence, scientists will believe they're doing science wrong rather
> than admit they are stumped. For example, if physical laws vary, I don't
> believe scientists would ever stop looking for a rule by which they can
> determine how it varies. I don't think they'll ever stop looking for a
> way to unify GR and QM. It's just taken on faith that there's one set of
> rules that apply to everything.
>
At least one, currently sidelined, scientist thinks there is an answer 
to this, in the fact that "nano-particles", which are larger than a 
photon, still behave in the sort of "wave or particle" fashion. His 
hypothesis is that, over a certain number of atoms, gravity sort of 
"switches off" QM effects. That, beyond that size, you can't get quantum 
effects, because the localized gravity of the particles "in" the object 
prevent them contained, and limit how much QM jitter you end up with.

Now, the consequence of this would, presumably, be that the "width" of 
the effect narrows, as you get things bigger, i.e., it scatters over an 
area less and less, and that, at some point, you just stop seeing a 
pattern, instead of solid hits. A few people are experimenting with it 
now, but.. most scientists seem to prefer some other solution at the 
moment (though what that would be, or why they think the experiment to 
work out the threshold size is not worth doing, is beyond me...)

Still, its an interesting idea, and explains nicely why your desk will 
never "jump" all into one corner of the room, for no reason. Though.. It 
may still leave open the question of why the air in the room doesn't... lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message