It is a reply to Heisenberg.
====
Werner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
===
With quantum mechanics the supposedly straightforward relation between experiment and 'reality' has been lost.
On 4/20/25 1:28 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"Theory determines what we observe." --Albert Einstein
"Physics and Reality" (1936) ˆ an essay published in the Journal of the >>> Franklin Institute.
In it, Einstein says:
"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you
use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed."
Now, let me explain what are one of the things that could mean...
[snip misunderstandings]
It is a reply to Heisenberg.
====
Werner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not
nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
===
With quantum mechanics the supposedly straightforward relation
between experiment and 'reality' has been lost.
Jan
That's loose talk from begin to end.
Either you don't know how to carefully extract Heisenberg's note from
the context, or your Heisenberg himself was making loose nonsense talk.
The nature "exposed to our method of questioning" is also "nature in
itself" of course!.. Does it need a Physfit's dick to clarify it?
Silly woman!
Werner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not
nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a reply to Heisenberg.
====
Werner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
===
With quantum mechanics the supposedly straightforward relation between experiment and 'reality' has been lost.
au contraire. Those are only for modeling, aka visualizing 3D plus time in 2D, aka 3D+1D -> 2D.
like describing a 3D color space onto a black and white picture on the
wall. How would you do that. It's impossible. Let alone quantum. In
quantum the big scientists still dont ndrestrand anythin and never will.
The stupid they are wanting to unify quantum with macro.
With quantum mechanics the supposedly straightforward relation
between experiment and 'reality' has been lost.
au contraire. Those are only for modeling, aka visualizing 3D plus time
in 2D, aka 3D+1D -> 2D.
like describing a 3D color space onto a black and white picture on the
wall. How would you do that. It's impossible. Let alone quantum. In
quantum the big scientists still dont ndrestrand anythin and never
will. The stupid they are wanting to unify quantum with macro.
Macro doesn't exist, except as an approximation.
The world is quantum,
On 4/20/2025 9:12 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
Werner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not >>> nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
What we observe - is a claim. It's
a text information. It submits our
rules of text processing, nature
"in itself" has nothing to do with
it and never had.
And, yes - a theory teaches us how
our observation should look like.
On 4/21/25 1:29 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/20/2025 9:12 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
is notWerner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe
nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
What we observe - is a claim. It's
a text information. It submits our
rules of text processing, nature
"in itself"Â has nothing to do with
it and never had.
And, yes - a theory teaches us how
our observation should look like.
"Text information" is nature in itself, Bozo.
On 4/21/25 1:25 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/21/2025 8:05 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/21/25 1:29 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/20/2025 9:12 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
observe is notWerner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we
What we observe - is a claim. It'snature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." >>>>
a text information. It submits our
rules of text processing, nature
"in itself"Â has nothing to do with
it and never had.
And, yes - a theory teaches us how
our observation should look like.
"Text information" is nature in itself, Bozo.
No it is not. Without a trained by a culture
human mind able to interprete it it's either
a stream of meaningless sounds or a stream
of meaningless characters, Bozo.
"a stream of meaningless sounds" is nature in itself, Bozo.
On 4/21/25 2:11 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/21/2025 9:03 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/21/25 1:25 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/21/2025 8:05 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/21/25 1:29 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/20/2025 9:12 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
observe is notWerner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we
questioning."nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of
What we observe - is a claim. It's
a text information. It submits our
rules of text processing, nature
"in itself"Â has nothing to do with
it and never had.
And, yes - a theory teaches us how
our observation should look like.
"Text information" is nature in itself, Bozo.
No it is not. Without a trained by a culture
human mind able to interprete it it's either
a stream of meaningless sounds or a stream
of meaningless characters, Bozo.
"a stream of meaningless sounds" is nature in itself, Bozo.
But a text isn't that.
Anything that is, is nature in itself, Bozo.
Quiet, rude ape. We dogs do
Jan is a well-known poster in Usenet, reasonably sound on most matters
save physics, where he is as pigheaded as you and other Einsteinians.
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
--
On 4/21/25 2:52 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:observe is not
On 4/21/2025 9:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/21/25 2:11 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/21/2025 9:03 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/21/25 1:25 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/21/2025 8:05 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/21/25 1:29 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/20/2025 9:12 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
Werner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we
nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
What we observe - is a claim. It's
a text information. It submits our
rules of text processing, nature
"in itself" has nothing to do with
it and never had.
And, yes - a theory teaches us how
our observation should look like.
"Text information" is nature in itself, Bozo.
No it is not. Without a trained by a culture
human mind able to interprete it it's either
a stream of meaningless sounds or a stream
of meaningless characters, Bozo.
"a stream of meaningless sounds" is nature in itself, Bozo.
But a text isn't that.
Anything that is, is nature in itself, Bozo.
No, Bozo.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nature
There is a difference between the English language and physics, Bozo.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
"Theory determines what we observe." --Albert Einstein
"Physics and Reality" (1936) – an essay published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute.
In it, Einstein says:
"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed."
Now, let me explain what are one of the things that could mean...
LSD determines what we observe.
It is the Purple Haze which decides what can be observed.
Orange Sunshine?
"Theory determines what we observe." --Albert Einstein
That means, all your theories are just...what You 'read into it'.
In other words, your theories are theories you read 'into' nature rather than read it out of nature.
In other words, YOU JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP!!!!
Here is another example of 'reading your theoriess into nature'...
Albert Einstein said: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world
is that it is comprehensible".
The "comprehensible" is another word for...'reading your theoriess into nature'.
So, Einstein gots his quote backwards. It should read: "The most comprehensible thing about the world is that it is incomprehensible".
Or: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." -- Steven Weinberg.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
"Theory determines what we observe." --Albert Einstein
"Physics and Reality" (1936) – an essay published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute.
In it, Einstein says:
"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed."
Now, let me explain what are one of the things that could mean...
LSD determines what we observe.
It is the Purple Haze which decides what can be observed.
Orange Sunshine?
"Theory determines what we observe." --Albert Einstein
That means, all your theories are just...what You 'read into it'.
In other words, your theories are theories you read 'into' nature rather
than read it out of nature.
In other words, YOU JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP!!!!
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
"Theory determines what we observe." --Albert Einstein
"Physics and Reality" (1936) – an essay published in the Journal of the
Franklin Institute.
In it, Einstein says:
"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you
use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed."
Now, let me explain what are one of the things that could mean...
LSD determines what we observe.
It is the Purple Haze which decides what can be observed.
Orange Sunshine?
"Theory determines what we observe." --Albert Einstein
That means, all your theories are just...what You 'read into it'.
In other words, your theories are theories you read 'into' nature rather than read it out of nature.
In other words, YOU JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP!!!!
Here is another example of 'reading your theoriess into nature'...
Albert Einstein said: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world
is that it is comprehensible".
The "comprehensible" is another word for...'reading your theoriess into nature'.
So, Einstein gots his quote backwards. It should read: "The most comprehensible thing about the world is that it is incomprehensible".
Or: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." -- Steven Weinberg.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 496 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 58:56:09 |
| Calls: | 9,760 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,742 |
| Messages: | 6,185,443 |