> > >"Higher level of reality" generally means "This does not need
> > >to make any sense."
>Me> Physicists do not think so when studying quantum mechanics.
>I don't know of any physicists who consider quantum mechanics to
>represent a "higher level of reality".
Well when they start speaking about TOEs, one does get this impression.
To put it this way, 19th Century physicists studied the world and see many strange phenomena that contradict classical physics (namely the Ultraviolet catastrophe, the wave/particle duality and so forth). They put their heads together and eventually come up with a new branch of physics that operates at subatomic level that operates much differently from classical physics and in which the contradictions in classical physics are explained.
Do you see the parallel between getting contradictory answers from gods and using that to make meaningful statements about a higher level of reality in which the contradictions in the gods' answers are resolved?
>I've never even found it
>particularly complex or hard to understand -- anyone who passed
>calculus should recognize its simplicity.
Which only reinforces my point about a higher level of reality being comprehensible.
>Certainly the quantum isn't inherently contradictory. It does seem
>to contradict relativity, but for that very reason physicists assume
>that one or the other is flawed, which rather defeats your argument.
My argument was against your rather summary dismissal of a higher reality as being one that need not make any sense. By pointing a sphere of knowledge in which conventional notions need not apply yet is comprehensible, I've refuted that. Whether the understanding of a higher reality is correct or flawed is irrelevant to the point.
PS: sorry about the doubled postings.
Powered by hypermail