Heya Michael,
You know, I don't know your first name, or if it's Mr. or Ms. But hello
> Schwarzwald and thanks for the response. While I'm asking personal
> questions, where are you, how good is your math, do you work with qm, ever
> published a paper.
>
>
>
> I realize the questions I asked in the last post, not those above, might
> seem a bit odd to you but if you will read on I'll explain why I am asking
> them as I have.
>
Northeastern US, my math is about what you'd expect for an average
college-educated person, and emphatically no on the latter two questions. I
am not a scientist, certainly not a physicist.
> Your aim in my original message should be the aim(s) of ASA. I would agree
> to your other points. I would also agree that public education is poor. J.
> Q. Public is undereducated, poorly informed, loves technology but doesn't
> really care about science. The world lacks deep thinkers. ASA, indeed any
> teacher, can only teach what others are willing to learn. Teachers answer
> the questions asked or those questions that should be asked as best the can.
> What questions are being asked that include both God and science? If you
> looked at the questions asked and broke them down by category, which types
> of questions are asked most often? As teachers we should be prepared to
> answer these questions. The number of questions asked concerning both God
> and science typically concern, at least in this country, questions dealing
> with accepting evolution given Genesis, or from the other perspective
> accepting Genesis given evolution. Few JQP's have accepted both and until
> they do fewer still will be able to progress to the point of rationalizing
> both QM and God. But there are those who are now asking questions on this
> level and I find them interesting to talk to.
>
Well, I want to repeat here that my goal was far broader than even
specifically developing a way for Christians (much less ASA in particular)
to 'engage' QM, and speak of the relation between God and QM. In fact, I
don't really see this topic as necessarily one where ASA and Christian
leaders should, say.. 'be prepared to give answers', because the most
fundamental and interesting aspects of QM -have- no clear answers, at least
as near as I can tell.
My criticism was kept slight and implied - frankly, it was aimed more at
secular organizations that promote science education, and less at Christians
who I think have unwittingly accepted the terms, so to speak. In other
words, it seems like a self-perpetuating focus and conflict - and if the
desire is 'science education' in general, and not something vastly more
narrow, QM should be coming up.
So, I suppose I'm trying to highlight multiple things at once. The
importance of talking about QM in general, and the importance of realizing
the curious state of concern with 'science education'. To a lesser degree,
the willingness to accept that there are some very fundamental questions
that come into play with physics, and that these questions don't have crisp
answers.
>
> "Sorry if I'm not of more help with these questions, but by all means, I'll
> try to answer whatever you ask. The questions QM leads to (about
> materialism, realism, locality, consciousness, etc) are to me the most
> interesting thing, along with the experiments themselves."
>
>
>
> You are more help than you ever could realize. It seems we share similar
> interests about what QM might tell us about reality and we'll have to
> explore that topic further but right now I'm focused on developing a line of
> reasoning leading up to that description. At some time Einstein realized
> e=mc˛ but if he just said to everyone e=mc˛, who would have taken him
> seriously? He had to set out a line of reasoning based upon concepts that
> all would consider valid and lead them to e=mc˛.
>
Oh sure, I understand. It's good to engage these things as well. As I said,
I have more focus and interest on the specific experiments for a number of
reasons.
> Realizing that a description of a natural phenomena that accounts for
> quantum wholeness, nonlocality and wave particle duality can be made and
> that all the reasonable steps are known and accepted, at least by the vast
> majority of working physicists, I'm attempting to put together a
> presentation that might be presentable for publication. The idea here is
> simple I know of this description but few others do and apparently the
> physicists don't, so I'd like to make them aware. I'm aiming for a
> presentation that the experts would be able to accept. One devoid of P.O.
> factors, obvious errors and dubious claims. And one that might be understood
> by someone with a HS education. Putting it in simple language is not a
> problem I've spent a career putting medicine in simple language for my
> patients. But without having someone to discuss the other factors with I
> would not be able to do it. The realization of that need, to discuss this
> presentation with others was largely why I came to ASA But there are other
> reasons, perhaps I would say higher reasons, why I will stay after this
> project is completed.
>
Sounds like an interesting project! The one thing that worries me is, there
are claims that the general issues (metaphysical, mind-related, and
otherwise) related to QM are purposefully downplayed and/or ignored by some,
and my personal layman experience of this convinces me of as much. So I
think once you start to really grapple with and approach the most
interesting and strongly implied parts of QM, you're into territory that
will make some grind their teeth. On the other hand, there are various
experiments and data that all sides can agree to. (Again, in the What the
Bleep movie, there are serious and even in my opinion worthwhile criticisms
of various parts of it - but the demonstration of the twin-slit experiment
is, as far as I know, uncontroversial.)
> I had prepared a paper that I thought was finished and ready for
> publication but after arriving here on the list, I can see there are many
> changes that will have to be made before it is acceptable to minds other
> than my own. So I'm asking questions, trying to communicate ides without
> ambiguity: By___ do you and I agree___? Do you agree that ___ is a widely
> held view? Etc. And tying not to po anyone.
>
>
>
> I've written enough for today. Thank you again for your interest and help.
>
>
>
> Michael McCray
>
As I said, ask whatever you like - I'll try my best to reply. Again, I'll
say outright I'm not a scientist, and I'm hesitant to give definite answers
when I feel that the issue mostly raises questions. In fact, being given
definite answers that weren't warranted was part of the problem for me when
first trying to learn about QM. I'd look at the twin-slit experiment,
delayed choice quantum eraser, etc, where human observation/measurement, and
therefore mind/consciousness, was and is strongly implied as a factor
leading to various results. Then I'd go and ask someone educated in this and
be told, 'No, QM has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness or human
observation, you just misunderstand.' I'd go back to the experiments, try to
read up on them further to see where I made the mistake - I'd find other
legitimate, mainstream physicists saying expressly that those things do have
something to do with these results, this field. I'd get confused, ask
questions again, have what I read contradicted, assume I made a mistake, go
back, read again, etc, etc. Finally I learned to ask questions specific
enough that 'nothing whatsoever to do with' turned into 'well, we're not at
all sure what the actual ramifications are, and it's pointless/unscientific
to speculate', and that a lot of the discouragement was borne out of a worry
that, upon realizing the actual weirdness involved, I'd start to believe in
pseudoscience telepathy and such. (For the record, that did not happen.
Though I do have some respect for Rupert Sheldrake.)
Either way, hopefully that illustrates why I at once have an interest in
this, think it's important for people to be made aware of (certainly as
important as evolution, education-wise), but try not to have a hard and
definite opinion on it. That sort of attitude made learning about it a
miserable process, so I don't want to add to that problem.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 19 16:53:10 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 19 2008 - 16:53:10 EST