Science > Physics > Tom Davidson understands "Mother Nature"!/reaction
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"MauritsvandenNoort" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2005 05:34:53 AM |
| Object: |
Tom Davidson understands "Mother Nature"!/reaction |
Dear Tom Davidson,
First of all, thank you for your critical remarks. I think some of
them are really useful. It is clear that I lack a strong physical and
mathematical background. But there is one way to solve that.
Meanwhile, I came into contact with a famous physicist, who by the
way agreed with you that there are mistakes in my paper, but who
completely agreed with my suggestions. He is going to test my
hypothesis in a physical and mathematical correct way.
I disagree with you that neuroscience and physics have nothing to do
with each other. In addition, it is not
physics 'against' neuroscience... Moreover, I would like to react on
the following question. Am I arrogant? I don't think so I am
completely aware of my physical, mathematical and other limitations,
but perhaps it is good to answer this question in another way.
[i:d984d54973]Isn't it arrogant to think that you think that Tom
Davidson understands "Mother Nature"? [/i:d984d54973]
With kind regards,
Maurits van den Noort
Ps. you are right 'English' is not my native language
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Davidson understands "Mother Nature"!/reaction |
14 Mar 2005 09:30:10 AM |
|
|
MauritsvandenNoort wrote:
I disagree with you that neuroscience and physics have nothing to do
with each other.
I never made such a claim. I *do* question the relevance of expertise
in neuroscience to the mathematical and physical problems inherent in
quantum mechanics.
In addition, it is not
physics 'against' neuroscience...
....Uncle Al's comment, not mine...
Moreover, I would like to react on
the following question. Am I arrogant? I don't think so I am
completely aware of my physical, mathematical and other limitations,
but perhaps it is good to answer this question in another way.
I think it is arrogant for someone who may qualify as an expert in one
foeld to try to cross over to another field and pontificate without
even taking the time to learn the basis of the unfamiliar field.
While I am no neuroscientist, I do know enough, for instance, to know
that signal transduction along neurons travels very slowly compared to
the speed of light, and therefore has more to do with biochemistry than
with the quantum mechanical behavior of electrons. That knowledge alone
will not qualify me to lecture neuroscientists on signal transduction.
If I would discuss this concept with a neuroscientist, I would do so as
a student approaching the teacher with a question, not as an outsider
presuming to lecture the university faculty.
You get a more attentive audience that way.
My previous post described the basic concept of a physical
"measurement" in three simple sentences:
A standard is selected.
An observation is made.
The observation is compared to the standard.
Wave functions are mathematical constructs - models of the behavior (in
this case) of single electrons. Variables that contribute to the
wavefunction correspond to observables in measurements made of the
actual behavior of actual electrons.
I still am not clear about what you are referring to when you use the
phrase "the measurement problem."
[i:d984d54973]Isn't it arrogant to think that you think that Tom
Davidson understands "Mother Nature"? [/i:d984d54973]
I never made that claim, either. I study chemistry and physics in the
*effort* to learn about "Mother Nature." I am the first to admit I do
not "understand" everything about the observable universe, but I do
accept without reservation the judgements passed on the theories of men
by "Mother Nature" in the form of empirical observations that either
confirm or contradict the theories.
Again:
"Mother Nature" provides the ultimate interpretations of the theory as
a 'right or wrong' judgement of the accuracy of theoretical
predictions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
