It's a statement about what it means to be a "wave", how the concept indicated by that word is understood through normal human conventions, especially as it is used in the more specific physics of waves.

So, if light exists as a wave, which much evidence indicates, then it exists according to the principles understood by the concept signified by "wave", which i was talking about in the statement. It is a simple conclusion of deductive logic. P1, Waves have x essential properties. P2 Light exists as waves. C Therefore light has X properties. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, there's just one Irish I know of--me, so I'm fully dense, I suppose. Jamal, having @fdrake as company, is mercifully only half dense. — Baden

Because of the unusual concentration of bellends no doubt. — Jamal

quantum field theory has EVERYTHING to do with the propagation of light. — flannel jesus

It's not pseudoscience which I am engaged in, because I do not pretend to be doing science. I am speculating in metaphysics and not at all pretending to be doing physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've studied enough physics to know that a wave is an activity of a substance. That's simply what a wave is, and all waves are understood through modeling the movement of the particles within that substance. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the key point, the attempt to detect "relative motion" of matter through the ether. If it is the case that matter as well as the waves are both properties of the ether, then there would be no such relative motion, what we perceive as matter would just be a moving part of the ether. And, this is supported by quantum field theory. Particles of matter are understood as properties of the field, not distinct from (so as to move relative to) the field. — Metaphysician Undercover

The idea he's presenting here is that of quantum field theory if I understand him correctly - he did bring that up before. Quantum field theory is, by my understanding, far from pseudo science, though the comparison between quantum field theory and the aether *might* be - it seems like at least a fair comparison to think of, but I don't know enough to say why it's not. — flannel jesus

In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles. — Wikipedia - Quantum Field Theory

I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. That an observation (or perturbation) precedes the so-called "collapse" is not in question. But "correlation does not prove causation". In my quoted definition above, "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it". The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". — Gnomon

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark

True. Although given the ways we've already found that life has adapted to take advantage of quantum effects, I figure it will probably come to play some sort of role. Obviously life uses quantum phenomena in that all chemistry is quantum phenomena, but it seems likely that adaptations for molecule level cellular machinery taking advantage of non-classical effects will be something we continue to find. After all, live evolved in our real world, not the abstraction we call the "classical scale world," and if optimal solutions involve quantum effects then life could easily have chanced upon them over 4 billion years. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You already have neat little experiments like this: https://www.sciencealert.com/study-suggests-spins-of-brain-water-could-mean-our-minds-use-quantum-computation

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be

There has been a decent trickle of these, some related to how microtubules and tubulins re-emit trapped light, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Bellendism — Baden

Ha - you beat me to it! — EricH

The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to measure the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous aether, a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves. The experiment was performed between April and July 1887 by American physicists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley...

The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against some aether theories, as well as initiating a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out motion against an aether."  — Wikipedia - The Michaelson-Morley Experiment

I've studied enough physics to know that a wave is an activity of a substance. That's simply what a wave is, and all waves are understood through modeling the movement of the particles within that substance. That's what a wave is, a specific type of activity of a substance which involves an interaction of its particles. Therefore a wave in empty space is simply impossible because there would be no particles there to make the wave. Yet we know from observation, rainbows, and other refractions, that light must consist of waves, therefore there must be a substance there which is waving.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, suppose space is the "substance there which is waving". After all, the gravitational wave observations in recent years, (combined with electromagnetic observations of the source of detected gravitational wave observations) provide some pretty good evidence for space waving. — wonderer1

What M-M disproved is that the relationship between massive objects, bodies, and the ether, is not as was hypothesized. That does not prove that there is no substance which is waving, it just proves that the relationship between massive objects and the substance which is waving, is not as they thought it ought to have been. — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems to me you both make valid points. — 180 Proof

bellicosity is probably better. — Jamal

bellicism — javi2541997

skirting around my back in an attempt to influence others to ignore and ostracize another member is cowardly. — NOS4A2

Do you think I do not believe what I am writing? — NOS4A2

The point of exposing my beliefs here, rather than some echo chamber, is to have them exposed to criticism. — NOS4A2

Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1. — Gnomon

"if quantum mechanics really does provide the most fundamental description of nature, then at some level it must incorporate an account of consciousness and other key mental properties". — Gnomon

I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark

most transformative figure in the history of the United States — NOS4A2

we can talk about T Clark’s poetry? — NOS4A2

I think it's important in a democratic environment to keep the discussion going, to hear out the other side, and respond to them. — GRWelsh

Maybe because the truth matters. — Fooloso4

Because ignoring someone is a very disrespectful act. — javi2541997

↪Benkei :up: — 180 Proof

Because leaving his bullshit uncontested on a public forum could raise the idea with casual visitors it's a valid position. That's the only reason I ever reply to him. — Benkei

I am not a big fan of noir novels, — javi2541997

The important point is that the motivator has personal a base, not a relation to something external like "duty". — Metaphysician Undercover

"Duty" is better described as a director of action rather than a motivator of action. A person with no sense of duty might still be highly motivated to act. So if you want to talk about "duty", you ought to be able to make this distinction, between being motivated to act, ambitious, and being directed in your actions by some sort of sense of duty. Then we could discuss how ambitions are directed. Accordingly, the following paragraph doesn't make much sense: — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you guys misunderstand — ToothyMaw

How can you say:
Motivation comes from inside.
— T Clark

Then say:
A desire to avoid the judgment of others.
— T Clark

Isn't that contradictory? — Merkwurdichliebe

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends. — ToothyMaw

To give an idea of the caliber of writer SA used to employ: — hypericin

Many scientific papers are published for purposes. — flannel jesus

But verifiable experiments have been born from this sort of work. For example, tests of Bell's Inequalities came out of work in foundations and are important. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment came out of Wheeler and Feynman's work in foundations. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The spontaneous collapse versions do make slightly different predictions and have been tested in some forms. I posted a link to those above. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations by Benno Teschke — Maw

In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales. — T Clark

In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales. — T Clark

this whole conversation lately has just been you telling me I'm misinterpreting bells theorem. — flannel jesus

What's the big deal?... I'm not just some silly goober inventing new nonsensical ways of understanding experiments. I believe my understanding is in fact the intended understanding. — flannel jesus

Bell’s theorem reveals that the entanglement-based correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are strikingly different from the sort of locally explicable correlations familiar in a classical context. — flannel jesus

The quote of mine is just rewording that, where I replace "local hidden variable theories" with the phrase "classical universe where those questions have singular, definite answers." Those phrases may not be perfectly interchangeable, but they are close to interchangeable. — flannel jesus