Comments on: The Illusion Of Truth

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 16:17:10 +0000

This comment is actually a response to comments on another post where you were challenged to support your specious theory, specifically this thread. Post-hopping a conversation in the comments is not allowed. You are now forbidden to comment on anything but your original thread with this conversation. If you continue to post-hop you will be banned. Update: Banned it is.

By: presidentwpm

presidentwpm — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 16:01:32 +0000

I gave a theory as to how the energy of the early universe split into electron-positron pairs which was supported by the findings of Carl Anderson. This meant that quarks and gluons couldn’t exist because the starting materials are electrons and positrons which have whole number charges and quarks have fractional charges.

I’m glad I came across this post because I think the data that ‘proved’ the quark theory is an illusion of truth. In this case it can’t be supported by the electron-positron pair production which is an established fact. The scientists simply admit that they don’t know the mechanism by which the energy of the early universe turned into quarks, gluons, electrons, and their antiparticles.

Science is based on definitions and assumptions which means truth is what is accepted not necessarily what’s actually true. The special theory of relativity depends on the assumption that the speed of light is constant for all observers irrespective of their relative motion. However, it’s accepted as truth and treated as an immutable law. This has the effect of making space and time appear variant. If the underlying assumption of special relativity is ignored, space and time become invariant. So length contraction and time dilation are illusions that are treated as truths despite the fact that they depend on the assumption that the speed of light is constant for all observers.

So, yes, truth is an illusion in science.

By: Jean Tate

Jean Tate — Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:43:31 +0000

We do. Quite often.

Depending on how, exactly, you define “quantum space”, your smartphone does, ditto lasers. Less obviously, but perhaps more directly, a lot of medicine which involves radioisotopes relies on tunneling…

By: Tim Reyes

Tim Reyes — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 02:24:40 +0000

Brian. It is perhaps not that the models and results are an illusion of truth but rather that truth itself is an illusion, i.e. truth is just a colloquial term for an optimal solution or solution of highest probability.

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 23:09:24 +0000

If quantum physics depicts impossible physical characteristics on mass-like objects why should quantum space not also be equally strange and irrational? Though it’s equally irrational for a non-physicist to make conjecture but I see no reason to think the space surrounding atoms to be completely different from the space humans live and breathe in. Why shouldn’t quantum objects “behave badly” in that space? I suspect a better question might be, “Can we “large objects” take advantage of quantum space and use it to our advantage?”

By: tim

tim — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 15:04:39 +0000

what is shown in the main image?
I am confused from the three models you describe:
1. wave model that transitions to object model when the observer adds ‘certainty’ to the observation
2. matrix model looks like animation- it relies on stuff constantly moving which assumes that we have a wave/closer to object/ that propagates in linear fashion. From what you describe the object here is a vector of states and although practically considered an object it is computed as a wave that is composed of separate waves, that are synchronized somehow so that a vector can be built from those.
3. the integral path model looks like we have anti-waves. It still focuses on the dual-confusion idea for certainty, but it observes the space where that same pseudo-observed/certain/ object as an item positioned on a topological map of potentials that drive it towards one or different direction.

Observing the system from the integral path model objects can teleport(tunnel) since it expects somewhat continuous existence of the pseudo-observed object. Observing the system from the matrix model we see components being created, destroyed and composed. Looking from the wave model we have both the anti-wave topology and the object discretization(is an object at a position, is not an object in a position).
All three approaches require synchronization between the composites(system states, system constructs) over a specific time frame. The latter is imposed even though the time frame at which the system cluster operates is very different from the time frame of the observer. The latter can be recursively applied to the system cluster since the composites sharing different properties(like energy and so speeds and interfaces) posses their own time frames. Given that why do we try to synchronize? Doing quantum phisics is not like using pins to catalogue butterflies. The way I feel it is more like trying to pass the same river twice.