[Deep Breath]
The basis for the research that I am doing is in Quantum Physics. I found
problems, in the theory that I cannot devulge, because of its potential
consequnces in weapons development. However, logic, is a function of the
intuitive mind, and thought. "here
are still rules of cause and effect, they are just very, very complex and
depend an a counter _Intuitive_ understanding of the nature of time...
which is not the same thing at all." The rules of cause and effect, rarely
follow the standard notion, because many events are, "counter _Intuitive". In
many cases you have to accept what you are seeing, because you are seeing it,
although, you have little, or no, understanding of what you are seeing. I can
only speak for myself, but this experience causes an extreme sence of
disorientation. When I am asked what is my research, I am force to shrug my
shoulder, because I have no idea where my research is going, I simply follow
hunches, and feelings, based on previous research. This is how I ended up here.
It is simply a path, that presented itself, while I was reviewing research,
that I had priviously done. I most cases, logic, only appears after the
understanding of an aspect of the research. However, because the final
direction, of the research, is unknown, then the logic (intuitive), is also
unknown. Furthermore, the logic, is subject to the aspect of understanding, of
the research, or particular event. This path I chose for research was based on
my respect for, Richard Feynman, and his dislike, of conventional science, and
its authoritative structures. He felt, that theory did not depend on the
theorist, but on the reality of the scientist's, experience, and the
scientist's ability to express his understanding of that experience. (Including
his own work.) Thus, the logic, you describe, is only probable, and relative,
not absolute; not obvious. [A quantum answer ;)] (I will be writing much more
on this subject, and publishing it to my website,
http://members.home.net/deltard
As for DS9, the question that arises, whether quantum physics, is central to
the story, or used as props, and environment; "The space station sits next to a
"wormhole" which is definitely not classical in nature.". [Q: Does Science
Fiction count as film philosophy?] As for Deluze, and others, the key is, (to
these questions), on what the cinemphotographer/ film-maker, views as science
fiction. Or, as many philosophers do, use quantum science, as a philosophy, and
use it in abstract forms. [Warning! Warning!, the SciFi freaks are coming!,
unsubscribe now!, while you still can! ;> ]
"Live Long, And Prosper" Y
[Y is the only key board symbol that I could think of for the Vulcan greating]
John Daigle wrote:
> >The fundamental thought, behind the work, is classical. This
> >is also
> >true for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and Star Trek: Voyageurs. The
> >reason for
> >this comes, in the quote that I used in the last post. Many modern
> >philosophers, (Any Ph.D., and the numerous pseudo-intellectuals), have
> >taken
> >some of the basic ideas of the Quantum Universe, and incorporated them
> >in to
> >classical thought. The problem is that classical thought is
> >fundamentally,
> >logical, while Quantum thought, (modern physics), is fundamental
> >anti-logical.
>
> Well, I'm not sure this is true of DS9. The space station sits next to a
> "wormhole" which is definitely not classical in nature. Episodes have dealt
> with technology such as "lightsails" which are dependent on an Einsteinian
> conception of the universe, particle mass/energy, etc. They deal with
> quantum issues ALL the time... the Bar on the station is called "Quark's"
> which, while it is a name of a character, is also a quantum concept. The
> entire plot line is dependent on DS 9's position in a Relatavistic
> universe, so I would have to disagree that the the fundamental thought
> behind the show is classical.
> Quantum thought, modern physics, is not fundamentally anti-logical. There
> are still rules of cause and effect, they are just very, very complex and
> depend an a counter _Intuitive_ understanding of the nature of time...
> which is not the same thing at all.
> For example, let us look at the positron. Richard Feynman demonstrated
> mathematically that a positron can be conceptualized as an electron moving
> backwards in time... I.E. when we measure an electron/positron collision
> (leading to particle anihilation) what we have actually seen is a particle
> reversing itself in time... which is why neither particle continues
> "forward" in time after the collision. From this, it is possible that if a)
> antimatter moves backwards in time and b) an electron isn't destroyed in a
> particle collision than c) all electrons and positrons may be the same
> particle oscillating back and forth in time.
> This is perfectly logical. It also lead to superstring theory by another
> series of very logical steps.
>
> j. daigle
--
Thank You
Dr. Daniel Carras
Delta R&D, Inc. ( http://members.home.net/deltard )
"Philosophy Incorporated: Our Product Is Thought"
--------------------------------------------------
Dr.Dan Iam with Green Eggs and Ham [Ref Dr. Suess]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|