On the Daily Mail forum, one participant (کہا جاتا “whats-in-a-name”) started talking about حقیقی کائنات on July 15, 2006. It was attacked fairly viciously on the forum. I happened to see it during a Web search and decided to step in and defend it.
15 جولائی, 2006
Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 15/07/06 میں 09:28 AM
ھ, Kek, you’ve given me a further reason to be distracted from what I should be doing- and I can tell you that this is more interesting at the moment.I’ve been trying to formulate some ideas and there’s one coming- but I’ll have to give it to you in bits.I don’t want to delve into pseudoscience or take the woo-ish road that says that you can explain everything with quantum theory, but try starting here: HTTP://theunrealuniverse.com/phys.shtml
The “Journal Article” link at the bottom touches on some of the points that we discussed elsewhere. It goes slightly off-topic, but you might also find the “فلسفہ” link at the top left interesting.
Posted by: patopreto on 15/07/06 میں 06:17 PM
Regarding that web site wian.One does not need to ead past this sentence –
طبیعیات کے نظریات حقیقت کی وضاحت کر رہے ہیں. حقیقت ہمارے حواس سے ریڈنگ سے باہر تخلیق کیا جاتا ہے. Knowing that our senses all work using light as an intermediary, is it a surprise that the speed of light is of fundamental importance in our reality?
to realise that tis web site is complete ignorant hokum. I stopped at that point.
16 جولائی, 2006
Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 16/07/06 میں 09:04 AM
I’ve just been back to read that bit more carefully. I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:(مجھے) “Our perception of what is real is created out of the readings from our senses.” I think that most physicists wouldn’t argue with that would they? At the quantum level reality as we understand it doesn’t exist; you can only say that particles have more of a tendency to exist in one place or state than another.(ii) The information that we pick up from optical or radio telescopes, gamma-ray detectors and the like, shows the state of distant objects as they were in the past, owing to the transit time of the radiation. Delving deeper into space therefore enables us to look further back into the history of the universe.It’s an unusual way to express the point, I agree, but it doesn’t devalue the other information on there. In particular there are links to other papers that go into rather more detail, but I wanted to start with something that offered a more general view.
I get the impression that your study of physics is rather more advanced than mine- as I’ve said previously I’m only an amateur, though I’ve probably taken my interest a bit further than most. I’m happy to be corrected if any of my reasoning is flawed, though what I’ve said so far s quite basic stuff.
The ideas that I’m trying to express in response to Keka’s challenge are my own and again, I’m quite prepared to have you or anyone else knock them down. I’m still formulating my thoughts and I wanted to start by considering the model that physicists use of the nature of matter, going down to the grainy structure of spacetime at the Plank distance and quantum uncertainty.
I’ll have to come back to this in a day or two, but meanwhile if you or anyone else wants to offer an opposing view, please do.
Posted by: patopreto on 16/07/06 میں 10:52 AM
I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:
I think the write is quit clear! WIAN – you have re-written what he says to mean something different.
The writer is quite clear – “Once we accept that space and time are a part of the cognitive model created by the brain, and that special relativity applies to the cognitive model, we can ponder over the physical causes behind the model, the absolute reality itself.”
Blah Blah Blah!
The writer, ہاتھ Thulasidas, is an employee of OCBC bank in Singapore and self-described “amateur philosopher”. What is he writes appears to be nothing more than a religiously influenced solipsistic philosophy. Solipsism is interesting as a philosophical standpoint but quickly falls apart. If Manoj can start his arguments from such shaky grounds without explanation, then I really have no other course to take than to accept his descriptions of himself as “amateur”.
Maybe back to MEQUACK!