Human societies aren't abstract concepts. — dimosthenis9

They are. But part of reality.

I don't want to evolve into anything. We humans have that mind ability already. Logic is our mind's searching for truth mechanism and you still haven't mentioned not even one thing that Logic brings harm. — dimosthenis9

Of course, logic perse does no harm. But logic and "search for truth" relentlessly pursuited by scientists (who indeed are similar to truth or logic engines, though luckily there are exceptions) and applied to Nature brings our physical, and all the live in it, to the brink of extinction. Many species have already been swiped away from the Earth's surface, people suffer from science-based technology (as do many caged animals in experiments to find the so-called Truth; there are even scientists getting rewarded for systematically torturing animals!). And it doesn't look the situation gets better.

Don't take derivation litterally, as if physical structures posses mathematical structures. A circular structure doesn't possess a math formula for a circle. The circles on top of my soup can induce (maybe that's a better word than derivation) a math formula for a circle. It's not an inherent formula of the circle. At least, not for me. A Platonist would disagree, although he places the formula in an extra worldly heavenly realm. Some place it in the objects themselves. People like Deutsch and Texmark, who, especially the former, try to base QM on a formal math basis. Without any knowledge of what the math describes I think that's a fruitless effort. David Bohm's hidden variables, though the nature of these variables stays obscure (but hey, isn't the Nature of reality obscure?, come closer to a physical reality, explaining the probalistic nature of QM. It's a pitty the people at the Copenhagen conference gave the fiat to the probability interpretation! How different the standard texts on QM would have looked!

The question then is, is math invented or discovered? — TheMadFool

Obviously invented and projected upon physical reality. It's reasonable that math is effective. Math is derived from structures in the physical world.

For example, if the wave function has amplitude (i.e., height or depth) at positions' 2 and 10 and those amplitudes are equal, then there is a 50% probability of finding the system at position 2 and a 50% probability of finding the system at position 10. This combination of potentially measurable positions prior to measurement is termed a superposition. — Andrew M

Such a wavefunction does not exist. Dirac deltas are not eigenfunctions. They are distributions.

Is there any good or bad in universe except human societies? Aren't these simple things that people try to define as to make our societies and our living together function?? — dimosthenis9

"Human societies", like "a country", are abstract concepts and can as such not be good or bad. A country or society has no mind of its own. Nor has a society. Good and bad are not "defined", they are just human qualities (in this sense, a society trying to get rid of the bad is more inhumane than one in which it can exist).

Can an a priory human skill like Logic ever be bad or evil? Especially logic which is our "searching for truth engine" , which helped us the most to evolve? — dimosthenis9

To answer your first question, it can. And in science-based societies it's doing even evil, with no bad intentions though. Look at the state of the world. Look at the harm done to Nature.

The remark following is, excusez les mots, bull-nonsense. Searching for a truth engine (whatever that may mean...) helping us most to evolve? If you wanna evolve into a truth engine then it's maybe handy. I surely don't!

Measureless dwelling
In the big oceans of jellyfish
Formal free
Cut loose
From culture and program
Sunrays play hide and seek
Their colors making me
Awe
I'm breathing like day and night
Tentacles tickle
Smoothness
It was there
Where I met you

I watched the video. A new propagandist for the sciences and the central dogma of biology (equivalent to that dumb selfish gene interpretation of Dawkins, another propagandist), covered with a sausage of metaphysical BS about a reality in which the space and objects around us are compared with symbols on a computer screen. It's pretty obvious that a red apple is a construction of the mind. And so is his conception of the red apple. What exactly his "transistors and diodes and electrical currents" are becomes not apparent in the video and I don't bother to invest further. As a physicist I stick to the physical interpretation endowed with a magical ingredient giving rise to consciousness. Which is an interpretation too, but that's all we have. There is not one ultimate truth (so hammered upon by the sciences). The bottle-fucking beetle is fun though! Imagine that would be our reality... Jack Daniel's replacing my wife... "It's been a long time Jack, welcome back! How's Johnnie Walker doing?"

The "good" that you mention is nothing more than a human invention!! There is no good or bad in universe. — dimosthenis9

I'm not sure I understand the exclamation marks. Why? Even if it is, aren't people part of the universe and thus good and bad?

If you had to write an essay about this question what would your axes be? — Lea

I think the best way is to take examples as axes and not some "formal systems" of doubt, eventhough philosophers love formal systems. Which could be a first example of doubt. Doubting the formal systems.

Personally it doesn't make sense to me to treat science as a religion. — hanaH

Where do I say science is a religion? It can be compared to it, sure. Labs taking the place of churches, scientists as the whole bunch of people from priest to pope, imam, and people shouting from minarets, all scientific literature as the holy books (or oral traditions in non-western cultures which in general have more respect for Nature than western-, science-based culture which tends to place itself separate from Nature by it's very nature), Nature as the gods, Einstein Dawkins (the man of the selfish gene doctrine) being like Mozes hearing God speak, evolution (wrongly interpreted by that same Dawkins guy, giving rise to the false central dogma in biology) taking the place of the creation of man, cosmology of the creation of the heavens, schools (to which you are forced to go) and universities as the seminaries, etc. etc.

Science is not a religion though (so obviously it's irreligion which isn't to say it can combine with it). Gods do not enter in the scientific culture. It's more like an *art* expressing a worldview. In that respect it's no different from non-science-based cultures.

As such it can't be given ruling power. Which it clearly has in the modern world! And look at the consequences... The world has never been in a more deplorable state! Speaking of an analysis of the shadows....

You say religion is irrelevant, confusing, self-deceiving, and biased, and science is a refind common sense stripped away of all this. But that's your personal opinion. And that's indeed all it is. An opinion. So not a common sense. What would this common sense be? How do you know the gods don't exist? Science can't explain why the universe is there!

The strawman walked away! Thanks. Which similar expressions you refer to? You think QM can be applied to sea waves or oil drops?

Not sure what you mean by projecting advanced properties, (mental properties) to the quantum level. You mean explaining consciousness by QM (with which I disagree), or projecting classical macro properties to the quantum realm (with which I agree)?

What is the verified scientific paradigm?

. The true and the good are determined socially, through science and democracy, etc. — hanaH

Through science? Then you ignore non-scientific cultures. Science is just one culture amidst of many and should as such not be intertwined with democratic politics. Just as Christianity should be excluded from politics (as you suggest), so should science, unless all those involved agree to make it part of politics. There simply is not one reality that constitutes truth. Scientific reality is just one amongst many. Objective as it may sound.

As I see now, it's a bit unclear what I meant indeed. I mean that it can be argued that in atomic and molecular QM only electrons are involved. The nuclei merely give the potentials the electrons find themselves in. The wavefunctions of the electrons determine many of their properties. But QM can also be applied to atoms or molecules as a whole. Or for finding vibrational modes of molecules. So (supra-)atomic particles. Phonons or other quasi-particles involve atoms or larger structures.

Quantum mechanics deal with subatomic entities and their discrete quantity of energy. — Nickolasgaspar

Molecular and atomic entities are involved too, though it can be argued that only electrons are involved.

It's the Lagrangian for the standard model. With some false elementary fields, but only the future will show that. If people haven't fucked up Nature before...