Just because we don't know the mechanisms of spooky action at a distance, doesn't invalidate our knowledge of the mechanisms of steam trains. — counterpunch

Perfectly true. But the point is, science was supposed to disclose the fundamental constituents of being. When LaPlace devised his 'daemon', then it was supposed that science for once and for all would show that all is determined by objectively-real forces. When Heisenberg torpedoed the very idea - well, let's say, the response was incommensurate with the the original claim.

i appreciate the fact that someone who knows how to use a computer would go the route of calling it magic. In my opinion all matter and energy is haunted. Thank you Sir!

Perfectly true. But the point is, science was supposed to disclose the fundamental constituents of being. When LaPlace devised his 'daemon', then it was supposed that science for once and for all would show that all is determined by objectively-real forces. When Heisenberg torpedoed the very idea - well, let's say, the response was incommensurate with the the original claim. — Wayfarer

Okay, but I suppose you realise that LaPlace was a strict determinist, and Einstein proved determinism false a decade before Quantum Mechanics. Also, I suppose you know Einstein hated quantum mechanics. 'God does not play dice' he said, referring to probabilistic math used to make sense of quantum phenomena - that cannot be empirically designated a location and/or a velocity.

But what if that's because quantum objects don't posses those existential properties? Then the deterministic, or rather relativistic causal reality is preserved; and it's not an epistemic problem of establishing certain knowledge. Then Einstein's right. God does not play dice. I suppose you know he was hella smart!

i appreciate the fact that someone who knows how to use a computer would go the route of calling it magic. In my opinion all matter and energy is haunted. Thank you Sir! — turkeyMan

It is almost always the case that a webdeveloper has zero understanding of the logic of a computer at the hardware level. Moving from hardware to software is a path of many different layers of abstraction and as a result the lower levels are 'hidden' from the higher levels. In the industry this is even termed as magic.

But it's not really magic of course. It's a well-established domain, computer science.

Most of the moderators reject panenpsychism and constitutive micro-psychism so i'll keep my mouth shut.

My deepest apologies for being on this forum.

as far as i know the computers built in the 1950s used all equations and concepts developed prior to the 20th century. This is a common misconception about modern technology. Most of modern technology can be built with equations that predate Einstein. Please correct me if i'm wrong. As each generation passes each technology is refined. The future began in 2000 c.e. . Flying cars were possible at the time of September 11th but September 11th pretty much showed us why average People shouldn't have Airplane licenses or flying cars. The difference between a flying car and an airplane is a flying car is supposed to be easier and more accessible to the average person. I'm not against poor People getting Pilot licenses and that was not the intent of what i'm saying.

To limit confusion the 19th century was the 1800s.

I'm not against nuclear power but you don't need nuclear power for automobiles, computers and rockets. Einstein largely contributed to the rise of Nuclear power.

would put in the category of magic — elucid

Yes, computers are magically amazing! what about airplanes flying? After so many flights I've taken I'm still amazed seeing those super-heavy monsters flying in such a safe way!

The technology we have created in the last, I would say 100 years ? ...is really amazing.

Take Plato or Aristotle and bring them here, they would think gods have descended to earth!
Aside comment: And then, after a few days people would call them slavist, machists and xenophobes :rofl: ... technology has not only changed our life but our values and ethics as well.

Elucid should probably stick to making 50k a year by sitting on his ass. No talent ass clown thats what he is. lol

just kidding i wasn't trying to be mean.

It's almost like magicians built the computer that can operate magically without the hardware. But, the hardware was created just to make it not seem magical or weird, and more scientific.

Fish fry, by "magic" I mean that suppose you take a potato and rub it and it turns into a Lamborghini. Modern day computers are just like that. — elucid

No, computers aren't anything like that. They're engineering artifacts that can be rationally explained and reliably designed and manufactured down to the chip level. The chips themselves are manufactured in wafer fabrication facilities. It's all completely explainable. The parts that aren't are the fundamental laws of electronics and materials science depending on physics. But even most of that is understood, it's only the deepest levels of physics that aren't understood. But that's true about rocks and tomatoes as well so computers are no different.

You might enjoy reading up on integrated circuits, computer architecture, operating system kernels, modern cpu design, and the like. Those are the things that appear magical from the application programming level. But they're not, any more than cars are magic to someone who only knows how to operate the steering wheel, accelerator, and brakes. Those things are not understood by the driver, but they're well understood by the automotive engineers who designed and built them.

Most of modern technology can be built with equations that predate Einstein. Please correct me if i'm wrong. — turkeyMan

Transistors rely on the principles of quantum physics. Explainer here.

Moving from hardware to software is a path of many different layers of abstraction and as a result the lower levels are 'hidden' from the higher levels. In the industry this is even termed as magic. — emancipate

Interesting reference!

edit.

edit

Also, I suppose you know Einstein hated quantum mechanics. 'God does not play dice' he said, referring to probabilistic math used to make sense of quantum phenomena - — counterpunch

I find the Copenhagen interpretation quite persuasive, as far as I understand it. I read Manjit Kumar’s ‘Quantum’ and David Lindley’s ‘Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg and the Battle for the Soul of Science’, both difficult reads, but informative with respect to the philosophical aspects.

I find the Copenhagen interpretation quite persuasive, as far as I understand it. I read Manjit Kumar’s ‘Quantum’ and David Lindley’s ‘Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg and the Battle for the Soul of Science’, both difficult reads, but informative with respect to the philosophical aspects. — Wayfarer

Rockstar physicist and engaging Youtuber Sean Carroll is big on Many Worlds. But the fact that people argue about the right interpretation of QM, is not by any stretch of the imagination an argument for the thesis that "computers are magic." After all, radios used to work on vacuum tubes. Those depend ultimately on quantum effects too. But you can't credibly say that a tube radio of the 1950's was just an engineering artifact but the transistor radios of the 1960's suddenly became "magic" by virtue of using transistors. That's stretching a point to no purpose, since it's ahistorical and ignores the nature of engineering progress. A transistor does exactly the same thing as a vacuum tube. They're functionally equivalent.

A transistor does exactly the same thing as a vacuum tube. They're functionally equivalent. — fishfry

Right. No argument from me there. But I still say, the fact that many eminent physicists have divergent, and even incommensurable, views of what physics means, or what it says about reality, is tantamount to saying, 'well, it works, but we really don't know how it works'. And that's the sense in which it's similar to magic.

A vacuum tube, by contrast, because it doesn't rely on quantum mechanics, can be explained without reference to qm. But what was the problem that eventuated with quantum mechanics? It was Max Planck's 'ultaviolet catastrophe'. That lead from his investigation of black-body radiation, which was an observational anomaly - according to current theory, the 'ultra-violet catastrophe' ought to have followed, and it was necessary to introduce the idea of the quantum to accomodate it. That was the beginning of quantum mechanics, and it came from observing the behaviour of phenomena.

Anyway, what's the problem? It's because we don't like 'magic' - it's superstitious, it's unscientific, no rational person would believe in magic. But I'm not at all sure of that anymore, either. Not that I rely on magic, or try to invoke it, but I'm nowadays confident that what is described as 'magic' is an element of reality. it's no more 'superstitious' than the sliding-doors world of the Everett interpretation.