From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>, <owner-critical-cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie>
Subject: RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 01:36:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <004401bec5b8$100e9cc0$90126ccb@ddiamond>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Chris Lofting
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 8:57 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Agassi <agassi@erols.com>
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>;
> owner-critical-cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie
> <owner-critical-cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie>
> Date: Sunday, 4 July 1999 6:26
> Subject: Statistics is a red herring
>
>
> >We don't need Statistics to see light behaving like a wave. Objects cast
> >shadows. Even objects that are light sources cast shadows when
> standing in
> >the beam from the light sources. But it is surprising that light itself
> >casts shadows. When a light source is split, and recombined, all that
> should
> >happen is for the original luminance to be recovered. But a dark spot can
> be
> >produced. Light can cast shadows. How can this be? If light is a
> wave, that
> >would explain it.
>
> The 'trick' is in the recombination, you are trying to put two things back
> into the same space and that requires reintegration process that
> is not the
> same as sticking two parts back together since you can still see the
> original 'break'; your reintegration attempts are too gross, you
> are missing
> something and as such will 'get' interference. (it is a bit like trying to
> put a neutron back together with just the proton and electron -- you are
> missing the 'glue'.)
This is non-explanatory. If you can make a particle model that still
explains the patterns of darkness, you will be world acclaimed.
>
> >
> >But we don't even need to confirm interference patterns for evidence of
> >light being a wave. There is still the Doppler effect. We can hear the
> >Doppler effect in the changing the pitch of sound emanating from passing
> >vehicles. We can see the Doppler effect observing a moving wave source on
> >the surface of a body of liquid. And we can also measure Red
> Shift and Blue
> >Shift. If light is a wave, then interference patterns are predicted. That
> is
> >why the experiments where ever performed. It was first suggested and
> >forgotten, as a Reductio Ad Absudum. It was carried out, later
> on, in hopes
> >of finding the evidence.
> >
> >Of course, it's not true, or at best not fully understood, that
> light is a
> >wave. Because in other experiments it behaves as a particle.
> >
>
> Depends on the experiment, the INTENT
I've already gone into this, and raised several questions, to which, as yet,
I have not seen answers from you.
>of the experiment and that
> includes a
> statistical bias that will generate wave patterns since you are viewing
> things GENERALLY rather than in PARTICULAR and the instruments/experiment
> are set up to detect this; they emulate dichotomous thinking and
> as I showed
> in the Wave/Particle Duality post a wave pattern emerges from this process
> regardless of scale or what you are measuring.
>
> (BTW, you seem to have found difficulty in responding to the W/P post in
> particular ... all the posts I have received today do not mention those
> findings at all..perhaps it is all too hard for you?.)
Is this the one where you listed photon event pairs? I couldn't make any
sense of it. Still, I have said that variance in light and shadow at
different distances between the light source and the projection surface
produce cross sections of a three dimensional map of a three dimensional
wave pattern. And there are many separate posts, on separate points, from
me, that you have not answered. And not much that you have answered,
directly, point for point, or to the point.
>
> Aspect's
Who?
>experiments delt with thing dichotomously as have all the laser
> interferometer experiments. My point is that the results can be
> obtained at
> ANY scale
What's a scale? Scale of what? What are you talking about. Define your
terms!
>using dichotomous processes, the patterns are 'in'
'in' is in quotes. So, what is really meant?
>the
> method and
> so no neccessarily 'out there' (and I have repeatedly emphasised the 'not
> necessarily'...)
Then, the half empty glass is also half full. In other words, that which is
conceived in the mind, explanatorily, is also quite possibly, even probably,
real. Such is the conjectural nature of Science. Hypotheses are advanced,
and pressed as far as they will go, until they break down. Thus do we learn.
But you have not shown any such break down.
Your problem is that to cast doubt out of fallibility, does not constitute a
refutation, or even much of an attack.
In order to make your objection into a serious one, you must either offer
refutation, or else demonstrate that the explanatory theories and
Methodologies you attack have no conceivable refutation, even
hypothetically. This you have not achieved. It is not enough to merely raise
the possibility that they might be self reinforcing.
>
>
> >Now, this may have all began, conjecturally. And such conjecture
> arose, in
> >some part, from Neural structure. And Neural structure evolved for
> survival.
> >But conjecture is testable. Alas, tests are also Memetically conceived.
> They
> >are also, however, Empirical. And as Memetic structure has evolved, it
> >continues to do so. Yes, any explanatory scheme may tend to be self
> >reinforcing. But we deliberately push them until, like all analogies save
> >Tautology, they break down. Thus we squeeze new clues from reality, and
> then
> >struggle with them.
> >
> >Chris Lofting has not shown a new breakdown. Wave/particle duality is
> >already known. All he has done is to harp upon bias and the limits of
> >imagination. Something which has already long been under
> consideration. But
> >he tries to make it look both new and fatal. He certainly offers no new
> >reason to consider it fatal.
> >
>
> You still have not addressed the W/P duality post that DOES raise
> the issue
> as to whether the *observed* results reflect properties of the
> METHOD rather
> than the 'things' under analysis.
They all raise that issue. But that's all they do.
>
> Until you can address that particular post *in detail* there is no more to
> be said since all the other posts I have received today attempt
> to reassert
> your agenda (by 'starting from the beginning') and so attempt to
> gloss over
> the explicit findings I have presented in that post.
I am not aware of ANY explicit findings from you.
>
> In simple terms, all statistical analysis based on dichotomies
> will generate
> a normal distribution curve. Add in indeterminate (or equivalent)
> states and
> what emerges is an an implied wave interference pattern. This
> will happen at
> ALL scales and is a property of the method. Being such you must be wary of
> the temptation to 'project' this property onto 'out there'.
But I am not relying on Statistics. As I have said already.
>
> All waves can be traced back to the interaction of objects; they
('They' meaning the waves, I take it. Not the interactions of objects.)
>are not
> fundamental
I'm not sure that I understand what it means to say that waves are, or are
not, fundamental. But I can suppose that all light waves begin when
particles oscillate, for example. That might be an interaction of objects,
where of you speak, and to which the waves of light can be traced. But does
this also allow for light that is not, actually, waves? I don't see how,
particularly.
>but can be seen to be by us since we can objectify them.
'Them' is a gramatical plural indefinite article. To which plural definite
article does it refer? Waves? Objects? What? This is unclear.
> Recursive dichotomisations will create them 'naturally'.
Huh?
>
> BTW some of your comments in the other posts suggest you have not gone
> through my website.
No, I have not. I'm having enough trouble keeping you to the point as it is.
>Perhaps you should (as well as my archived
> texts (a lot
> more recent than some of my web stuff) for the Psychology Karl
> Jaspers Forum
> at
>
http://www.mcgill.ca/douglas/fdg/kjf
as well as Quantum Mind at
http://listserv.arizona.edu/lsv/www/quantum-mind.html
Chris.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit