My Objections

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ To regard the use of the terms 'wave' and 'particle' as mere metaphors is to regard the use of the terms as merely analogical. I beg to disagree. In some experimental situations, a photon clearly 'behaves' (we're talking 'empirical', no?) as a particle; in others, as a wave. The problem isn't the 'metaphorical' use of terminology; it's the attempt at integrating the empiric occurrences into a singularly coherent concept. 'Wavicle's ref to the 'head'/'tail' of a coin has to do...for now. We're all Flatlanders studying other dimensions, obviously. What's the prob with the view that we don't yet understand all?

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ You have a point in your post #174, but, I have a prob with understanding your statement...

That intransitive verb "is" is tricky.

...Which 'is' (in your statement) has the presumed problem of being 'tricky'...and most especially...which one has (presumably) not? You used the term (non-metaphorically, I presume) 2x. --- Note: I didn't use 'is' here; I merely referred to others' use of it. --- (Hope we're not going to go the 'Clinton' way of arguing about the meaning of 'is' :sick: )

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 15, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

GenSem:

~You say...

The problem is (again ) 2-valued logic. It works absolutely in mathematics but only partially in any other language, like physics.

~ Would you further say that these statements, which you made (above) are unequivocably (aka: '2-valued' logic framework of thinking) true?

1) If so, would you please say such in 'mathematical language' so that we can use an unequivocably 2-valued 'true/not-true' determination about them?

2)If not, these statements are extremely ambiguous...if one tries to go by your implied framework. You do see that, don't you?

3)If otherwise, please explain THAT framework of thinking, which excludes "1)" and "2)."

Perplexed

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 15, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

GenSem:

~ You say...

...the problem begins when we say "it IS a particle" or "it IS a wave."

Uh-h-h..this 'IS' when the problem begins? O-h-h-ka-a-y-y. --- But, to me, the 'prob' seems equivalent to arguing about "This coin IS heads" and "This coin IS tails" (different photon experiments, different coin-flips) and everyone has been making (dare I say 'semantic'?) overly-verbalized semantically-analyzed mountains out of experimental molehills. Neither Einstein nor Hawking would approach these subjects this...vocabularistic way.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

GenSem:

You say...

Speaking about what something IS is a result of applying an epistemology which is about 2000 years old and sadly out of date.

~ I wasn't aware that any epistemologys were to be accepted according to fickle fashion --- Which 'epistemology' is now 'in date', btw? Would it matter 2 years from now? Also, the 'wheel' is more than 2000 years old; is there a better (er, more not-'out-of-date') replacement yet, that you know of?

~ Re your use of the term 'is' (both, as you emphasizedly CAPITALIZED, and as you otherwised [can we say, O'istly-speaking, 'stolen concept'?] used), you realize that you're contradicting your whole point in that very statement?

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

GenSem:

~ Finally, re your statement...

...we only need to describe how it behaves, how to measure it's effects, it's structure, etc.

...as an 'explanation' for your preluding statement to it:

There is no need to say what it is...

~ This 'argument' reminds me of Russell's argument about avoiding using names re "The author of 'Waverly'." Maneuver around 'X' all one wants, but one is STILL talking about, if not subtly referring to, or even secretly using 'X.'

~ To 'describe' how 'X' behaves, its measured effects, its structure, etc. 'descriptively' shows no difference in 'describing' what it IS...as one sees/perceives it. --- If you see a difference worth noting on this, please...'describe' what that difference...seems to be to you. I'm at a total loss on that.

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 15, 2007 by John Dailey