consciousness aint fuzzy

[jackles]

everythings fuzzy execpt for consciousness.consciousness aint fuzzy like other things cos it consciousness aint nothing.only happening things are fuzzy.so is relativity fuzzy.ha

[Blaggard]

Relativity is a classical theory so no it's not fuzzy, but then neither is quantum mechanics (the word fuzzy is awful when used about anything in physics science) it's probabilistic, but it's not some smear on a chalk board you can barely read, or something that can't be something tangible in experiment. It's able to be used to make modern technologies, in fact it has made most of the microchips that drive all those things that make your home such a cozy place quite happily without being remotely fuzzy. The word fuzzy clearly has been stolen from computers which use fuzzy logic in artificial intelligence theories, that try to mimic the sort of "messy" way human thinking operates, it has nothing to do with science outside of computers though.

[jackles]

relativity is consciousness and therefor not fuzzy.in the case of moving objects it relativity is a conscious awarness of a change in energy status in other words an observation of fuzziness in action.and this unfuzzy conscious awarness is the mover that is indirectly responsible for the change in the fuzzy energys status which makes up the happening event.and brings about the collaps of the fuzzy wave funtion in the double slit fuzzy photon ex.rember the consciousness of an observer is considered to be stationary when measuring a fuzzy photon the observer that is taking on the position of being the unmoving relativity in the event.you then your self have become part of the mover of the events moving objects.cos all the relativity in your brain is your consciousness.

[WanderingLands]

everythings fuzzy execpt for consciousness.consciousness aint fuzzy like other things cos it consciousness aint nothing.only happening things are fuzzy.so is relativity fuzzy.ha

More than fuzzy, it is not real.
Time Dilation, Space-Time, Constant Light - all an illusion, my friend.

[Blaggard]

Oh if only you understood what not real meant in physics WL, then we would have something to talk about. But you don't. Since you don't and no offense it's not really easy to talk about what is real in any manner you might understand, the ontological questions of physics, or any manner the interpretations might of used the term whilst weighing heavily on philosophy scholars of the 18th-20th century. It's good to talk, it's not so interesting when you know the person in question just hasn't done his home work. And yes you've wandered around the net finding all the things that agree with your point of view. Have you wandered around the net learning the broad sphere though, because a drunk could do a better job of stumbling around and finding all those things that agree with his point of view, and telling everyone who isn't on board, drunkenly that they are all just cnuts.

By which I mean if you really care about physics WL learn about it, don't just google what you want to hear, other people have said it, it is true, cognitive bias is as useful as a fart in a space ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Go through the list here and tick off all the things you have done in the last few years you have been researching your subject. Then come back and stop doing them. Then you are ready to discuss science. That is science, you need free your mind to the possibility of you being a numpty in a small world and completely pointless. You start with any sort of an idea of being right in science you are wasting your time. No one is right about anything not even remotely not ever, and not even close. Start with that mind set, you are close to what science is doing. And I have met scientists, the only thing they are certain of is that they are on the right path, and that that will later be the wrong path, but it is as good as it gets. What thrills any person i have ever met in science is not being right per se, although that is nice, it is in being wrong, and then just being more right. They love that shit, it's a pity you don't it is my opinion of working with them that they just do like the chase not the capture.

[WanderingLands]

Oh if only you understood what not real meant in physics WL, then we would have something to talk about. But you don't. Since you don't and no offense it's not really easy to talk about what is real in any manner you might understand, the ontological questions of physics, or any manner the interpretations might of used the term whilst weighing heavily on philosophy scholars of the 18th-20th century.

Provoking elitism. Nice!

It's good to talk, it's not so interesting when you know the person in question just hasn't done his home work. And yes you've wandered around the net finding all the things that agree with your point of view. Have you wandered around the net learning the broad sphere though, because a drunk could do a better job of stumbling around and finding all those things that agree with his point of view, and telling everyone who isn't on board, drunkenly that they are all just cnuts.

By which I mean if you really care about physics WL learn about it, don't just google what you want to hear, other people have said it, it is true, cognitive bias is as useful as a fart in a space ship.

I actually do in fact have an interest in physics and I do in fact still continue to learn about the concepts in Quantum. However, I more so rely on critical thinking and logic, which modern physics and science apparently has none at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Go through the list here and tick off all the things you have done in the last few years you have been researching your subject. Then come back and stop doing them. Then you are ready to discuss science. That is science, you need free your mind to the possibility of you being a numpty in a small world and completely pointless. You start with any sort of an idea of being right in science you are wasting your time. No one is right about anything not even remotely not ever, and not even close. Start with that mind set, you are close to what science is doing.

I'll look at it, but I am not simply going to leave behind my views toward science and academia, as you are simply using the tactic of "having an open mind" to simply denounce what's against your own shell of your own points of view. I'll admit that I am stubborn, which is indeed good when you know how to discern when to really be open mind and when to know to be critical about things.

[Blaggard]

I actually do in fact have an interest in physics and I do in fact still continue to learn about the concepts in Quantum. However, I more so rely on critical thinking and logic, which modern physics and science apparently has none at all.

Since quantum mechanics at least in interpretations is based mostly on philosophy this seems ironic.

Again do you know who Bohr based his now most popular philosophy on? Who's philosophical work he relied most heavily on? No and I doubt you care tbh.

Learn the subject come back when you have. You seem to be antagonistic against a supposed non philosophical sphere that is based heavily on the great philosophers of the last few centuries. No one who knew the history of quantum mechanics could of even remotely said that, since it's logical prepositions are all based on philosophy and the formal or non formal logical works of great philosophers.

Start here although why I should bother helping you to learn the basics is beyond me, but I suppose I am just nice.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

There's a lot more to learn about the logical prepositions after this but since this is the most popular philosophical interpretation you should start at least with this.

Bohr's more mature view, i.e., his view after the EPR paper, on complementarity and the interpretation of quantum mechanics may be summarized in the following points:

The interpretation of a physical theory has to rely on an experimental practice.
The experimental practice presupposes a certain pre-scientific practice of description, which establishes the norm for experimental measurement apparatus, and consequently what counts as scientific experience.
Our pre-scientific practice of understanding our environment is an adaptation to the sense experience of separation, orientation, identification and reidentification over time of physical objects.
This pre-scientific experience is grasped in terms of common categories like thing's position and change of position, duration and change of duration, and the relation of cause and effect, terms and principles that are now parts of our common language.
These common categories yield the preconditions for objective knowledge, and any description of nature has to use these concepts to be objective.
The concepts of classical physics are merely exact specifications of the above categories.
The classical concepts—and not classical physics itself—are therefore necessary in any description of physical experience in order to understand what we are doing and to be able to communicate our results to others, in particular in the description of quantum phenomena as they present themselves in experiments;
Planck's empirical discovery of the quantization of action requires a revision of the foundation for the use of classical concepts, because they are not all applicable at the same time. Their use is well defined only if they apply to experimental interactions in which the quantization of action can be regarded as negligible.
In experimental cases where the quantization of action plays a significant role, the application of a classical concept does not refer to independent properties of the object; rather the ascription of either kinematic or dynamic properties to the object as it exists independently of a specific experimental interaction is ill-defined.
The quantization of action demands a limitation of the use of classical concepts so that these concepts apply only to a phenomenon, which Bohr understood as the macroscopic manifestation of a measurement on the object, i.e. the uncontrollable interaction between the object and the apparatus.
The quantum mechanical description of the object differs from the classical description of the measuring apparatus, and this requires that the object and the measuring device should be separated in the description, but the line of separation is not the one between macroscopic instruments and microscopic objects. It has been argued in detail (Howard 1994) that Bohr pointed out that parts of the measuring device may sometimes be treated as parts of the object in the quantum mechanical description.
The quantum mechanical formalism does not provide physicists with a ‘pictorial’ representation: the ψ-function does not, as Schrödinger had hoped, represent a new kind of reality. Instead, as Born suggested, the square of the absolute value of the ψ-function expresses a probability amplitude for the outcome of a measurement. Due to the fact that the wave equation involves an imaginary quantity this equation can have only a symbolic character, but the formalism may be used to predict the outcome of a measurement that establishes the conditions under which concepts like position, momentum, time and energy apply to the phenomena.
The ascription of these classical concepts to the phenomena of measurements rely on the experimental context of the phenomena, so that the entire setup provides us with the defining conditions for the application of kinematic and dynamic concepts in the domain of quantum physics.
Such phenomena are complementary in the sense that their manifestations depend on mutually exclusive measurements, but that the information gained through these various experiments exhausts all possible objective knowledge of the object.

Bohr thought of the atom as real. Atoms are neither heuristic nor logical constructions. A couple of times he emphasized this directly using arguments from experiments in a very similar way to Ian Hacking and Nancy Cartwright much later. What he did not believe was that the quantum mechanical formalism was true in the sense that it gave us a literal (‘pictorial’) rather than a symbolic representation of the quantum world. It makes much sense to characterize Bohr in modern terms as an entity realist who opposes theory realism (Folse 1987). It is because of the imaginary quantities in quantum mechanics (where the commutation rule for canonically conjugate variable, p and q, introduces Planck's constant into the formalism by pq − qp = ih/2π) that quantum mechanics does not give us a ‘pictorial’ representation of the world. Neither does the theory of relativity, Bohr argued, provide us with a literal representation, since the velocity of light is introduced with a factor of i in the definition of the fourth coordinate in a four-dimensional manifold (CC, p. 86 and p. 105). Instead these theories can only be used symbolically to predict observations under well-defined conditions. Thus Bohr was an antirealist or an instrumentalist when it comes to theories.

In general, Bohr considered the demands of complementarity in quantum mechanics to be logically on a par with the requirements of relativity in the theory of relativity. He believed that both theories were a result of novel aspects of the observation problem, namely the fact that observation in physics is context-dependent. This again is due to the existence of a maximum velocity of propagation of all actions in the domain of relativity and a minimum of any action in the domain of quantum mechanics. And it is because of these universal limits that it is impossible in the theory of relativity to make an unambiguous separation between time and space without reference to the observer (the context) and impossible in quantum mechanics to make a sharp distinction between the behavior of the object and its interaction with the means of observation (CC, p. 105).

In emphasizing the necessity of classical concepts for the description of the quantum phenomena, Bohr was influenced by Kant or neo-Kantianism. But he was a naturalized or a pragmatized Kantian. The classical concepts are merely explications of common concepts that are already a result of our adaptation to the world. These concepts and the conditions of their application determine the conditions for objective knowledge. The discovery of the quantization of action has revealed to us, however, that we cannot apply these concepts to quantum objects as we did in classical physics. Now kinematic and dynamic properties (represented by conjugate variables) can be meaningfully ascribed to the object only in relation to some actual experimental results, whereas classical physics attributes such properties to the object regardless of whether we actually observe them or not. In other words, Bohr denied that classical concepts could be used to attribute properties to a physical world in-itself behind the phenomena, i.e. properties different from those being observed. In contrast, classical physics rests on an idealization, he said, in the sense that it assumes that the physical world has these properties in-itself, i.e. as inherent properties, independent of their actual observation.

Complementarity is first and foremost a semantic and epistemological reading of quantum mechanics that carries certain ontological implications. Bohr's view was, to phrase it in a modern philosophical jargon, that the truth conditions of sentences ascribing a certain kinematic or dynamic value to an atomic object are dependent on the apparatus involved, in such a way that these truth conditions have to include reference to the experimental setup as well as the actual outcome of the experiment. This claim is called Bohr's indefinability thesis (Murdoch 1987; Faye 1991). Hence, those physicists who accuse this interpretation of operating with a mysterious collapse of the wave function during measurements haven't got it right. Bohr accepted the Born statistical interpretation because he believed that the ψ-function has only a symbolic meaning and does not represent anything real. It makes sense to talk about a collapse of the wave function only if, as Bohr put it, the ψ-function can be given a pictorial representation, something he strongly denied.

Indeed, Bohr, Heisenberg, and many other physicists considered complementarity to be the only rational interpretation of the quantum world. They thought that it gave us the understanding of atomic phenomena in accordance with the conditions for any physical description and the possible objective knowledge of the world. Bohr believed that atoms are real, but it remains a much debated point in recent literature what sort of reality he believed them to have, whether or not they are something beyond and different from what they are observed to be. Henry Folse argues that Bohr must operate with a distinction between a phenomenal and a transcendental object. The reason is that this is the only way it makes sense to talk about the physical disturbance of the atomic object by the measuring instrument as Bohr did for a while (Folse 1985, 1994). But Jan Faye has replied that Bohr gave up the disturbance metaphor in connection with his discussion of the EPR thought-experiment because he realized that it was misleading. Moreover, there is no further evidence in Bohr's writings indicating that Bohr would attribute intrinsic and measurement-independent state properties to atomic objects (though quite unintelligible and inaccessible to us) in addition to the classical ones being manifested in measurement (Faye 1991).

I know all scientists are morons to you, but you seem to have this odd idea that the philosophy of science known as the foundation of quantum mechanics just sprang up out of the ether.

Einstein read Kant when he was in his teens. Schroedinger wrote several philosophical treaties whilst consulting with philosophers of the time, whilst none of them claimed to be philosophers or logicians in philosophy, to say they lack logic is naive.

[WanderingLands]

Since quantum mechanics at least in some interpretations is based mostly on philosophy this seems ironic.

Again do you know who Bohr based his now most popular philosophy on? Who's philosophical work he relied most heavily on? No and I doubt you care tbh.

Learn the subject come back when you have. You seem to be antagonistic against a supposed non philosophical sphere that is based heavily on the great philosophers of the last few centuries. No one who knew the history of quantum mechanics could of even remotely said that, since it's logical prepositions are all based on philosophy and the formal or non formal logical works of great philosophers.

I know pretty well about the philosophical dimensions of quantum mechanics, as I have in fact explored it some years ago, in fact looking even into "quantum consciousness". I know certainly for a fact that it is inspired by Kantianism, which is the basis of the Uncertainty Principle, and the basis of Relativity and all of the built up theories in Quantum Mechanics. The problem with Kant's philosophy, and the problem of the metaphysics/philosophy of quantum mechanics, though, is that there is too much subjectivity when there really shouldn't be much subjectivity - perhaps some skepticism, but not too much too where theories like "wave-particle duality", "twin paradox", "relativistic time", "multiverse", etc., arise out of such incompetence and the rejection of simple logic. My 'metaphysics' and 'philosophy' is more focused on objectivity; though it may be dynamic as in I do learn more about things, it nevertheless goes back to the simple foundation of what I've been talking of.

PS. It's occurring to me that you are adding more and more information on that post of yours. I appreciate you giving me sources to look at, but how about next time you not jump the gun and just edit you posts to include a bunch of more stuff. Instead, let the information flow during the discussion (as in introducing those links onto different posts, instead of putting it all in one post).

[Blaggard]

Since quantum mechanics at least in some interpretations is based mostly on philosophy this seems ironic.

Again do you know who Bohr based his now most popular philosophy on? Who's philosophical work he relied most heavily on? No and I doubt you care tbh.

Learn the subject come back when you have. You seem to be antagonistic against a supposed non philosophical sphere that is based heavily on the great philosophers of the last few centuries. No one who knew the history of quantum mechanics could of even remotely said that, since it's logical prepositions are all based on philosophy and the formal or non formal logical works of great philosophers.

I know pretty well about the philosophical dimensions of quantum mechanics, as I have in fact explored it some years ago, in fact looking even into "quantum consciousness". I know certainly for a fact that it is inspired by Kantianism, which is the basis of the Uncertainty Principle, and the basis of Relativity and all of the built up theories in Quantum Mechanics. The problem with Kant's philosophy, and the problem of the metaphysics/philosophy of quantum mechanics, though, is that there is too much subjectivity when there really shouldn't be much subjectivity - perhaps some skepticism, but not too much too where theories like "wave-particle duality", "twin paradox", "relativistic time", "multiverse", etc., arise out of such incompetence and the rejection of simple logic. My 'metaphysics' and 'philosophy' is more focused on objectivity; though it may be dynamic as in I do learn more about things, it nevertheless goes back to the simple foundation of what I've been talking of.

So why are you saying it lacks logic then it's all very well saying that but I don't think you can actually put your money where your mouth is and show any proofs.

I asked you earlier to show me where quantum mechanics is faulty, to show where Einsteins relativity is wrong and you ignored it. I think you don't know where it is wrong, and I think we are wasting our time expecting you to show how any of it is either illogical or wrong because all you have done is study your cognitive bias. To state where a theory like quantum mechanics is wrong you not only need to actually have studied it, you need to be a Scientist. It's not that anyone dismisses keen amateurs opinions, but when they just state it is wrong, don't do experiments. No one gives a flying ferkin mate. And nor should they and they never will. And you should get over your self satisfied personal anecdotes. As no doubt you will be told now and until you die, believe in having an opinion is all that matters in science. Knock yourself out, but you have already knocked yourself out of any chance of convincing anyone who has not been a lazy google merchant and spent at least 7 years knowing why quantum mechanics is wrong, and it clearly is, but I would be fucked if you knew why. You are and take no offense just a numpty and no one cares. Or ever will.

As said on a previous thread by Feynman and by others they didn't win a Nobel prize by explaining things to laymen. Why you expect by magic to be an expert better than people like that, without actually putting the effort in is beyond me. Hell you wouldn't be listened to in the soft sciences, let alone any philosophy if you had done the half assed job of learning about a subject you have so far mustered. Frankly I don't even know why anyone has any patience with you. But hell we are sometimes bored, and well I do like to help the clueless to the right track, and that is study the facking subject you numpty. Not your own personal biases, every ferking thing no matter how much you hate it. It's all been said before and better than I can, but will you listen will you fu...

[WanderingLands]

So why are you saying it lacks logic then it's all very well saying that but I don't think you can actually put your money where your mouth is and show any proofs.

I asked you earlier to show me where quantum mechanics is faulty, to show where Einsteins relativity is wrong and you ignored it. I think you don't know where it is wrong, and I think we are wasting our time expecting you to show how any of it is either illogical or wrong because all you have done is study your cognitive bias. To state where a theory like quantum mechanics is wrong you not only need to actually have studied it, you need to be a Scientist. It's not that anyone dismisses keen amateurs opinions, but when they just state it is wrong, don't do experiments. No one gives a flying ferkin mate. And nor should they and they never will. And you should get over your self satisfied personal anecdotes. As no doubt you will be told now and until you die, believe in having an opinion is all that matters in science. Knock yourself out, but you have already knocked yourself out of any chance of convincing anyone who has not been a lazy google merchant and spent at least 7 years knowing why quantum mechanics is wrong, and it clearly is, but I would be fucked if you knew why. You are and take no offense just a numpty and no one cares. Or ever will.

As said on a previous thread by Feynman and by others they didn't win a Nobel prize by explaining things to laymen. Why you expect by magic to be an expert better than people like that, without actually putting the effort in is beyond me. Hell you wouldn't be listened to in the soft sciences, let alone any philosophy if you had done the half assed job of learning about a subject you have so far mustered. Frankly I don't even know why anyone has any patience with you. But hell we are sometimes bored, and well I do like to help the clueless to the right track, and that is study the facking subject you numpty. Not your own personal biases, every ferking thing no matter how much you hate it. It's all been said before and better than I can, but will you listen will you fu...

Okay, I shall elaborate on why quantum mechanics is faulty.

1) The "wave-particle duality", which is tied to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It is quite fairly obvious that when you look at pictures and actual double slit experiments, that there is merely no wave-particle duality; it is merely in fact a wave, or better yet, a natural flow of energy. This 'duality' arisen out of wanting to keep the particle theory, which is quite inefficient to at all explain phenomena when instead you should look at the universal thing that holds up all things. Thus, you have Feynman's "many worlds" interpretation, which gives rise to the 'multiverse', which is based on a misconception of what a dimension really is, as there are those who say that there are 'many dimensions', which goes hand in hand with the 'many worlds' interpretation.
2) The Uncertainty Principle itself is also faulty, because it's based on the Kantian concept of the dialectic between the observer and the world. In reality, there is really no such distinction, especially in scientific experiments. It's because they focused too much on such as the smallest thing in the world as a particle that they came up with this principle. With the rise of many more theories: string theory, superimposition, etc., the Uncertainty Principle has done more harm than good in being too subjective.
3) String theory. Now, in still trying to hold up the particle theory instead of forgoing it, the scientists, or theoreticians, came up with the idea of string theory, which is supposedly supposed to bring about the interconnectivity of particles. However, it would make much more sense to completely forgo the particle theory, because if you're talking about interconnectivity then you are instead talking of a more universal force. Thus, all of the electrons, protons, quarks, etc., and be thrown out of the picture.

[jackles]

consciousness (nothing)as a singularity upholds fuzziness in the field and is the relativity in the fuzzy something wave function.if somthing( a brain) trys to find out whats happening in the fuzzy wave function it collapes it in a relative system.consciousness does not enqiure as to its own nature which is nothing.somthing can never see nothing.as nothing knows nothing that something cant ever know.nothing is beond field knowledge so something can not ever know it nothing.

[Ginkgo]

Okay, I shall elaborate on why quantum mechanics is faulty.

1) The "wave-particle duality", which is tied to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It is quite fairly obvious that when you look at pictures and actual double slit experiments, that there is merely no wave-particle duality; it is merely in fact a wave, or better yet, a natural flow of energy. This 'duality' arisen out of wanting to keep the particle theory, which is quite inefficient to at all explain phenomena when instead you should look at the universal thing that holds up all things. Thus, you have Feynman's "many worlds" interpretation, which gives rise to the 'multiverse', which is based on a misconception of what a dimension really is, as there are those who say that there are 'many dimensions', which goes hand in hand with the 'many worlds' interpretation.

I would think this needs a fair bot of elaboration. Many dimensions is not necessarily the same as multiverse, so they don't necessarily go together. In the same way I would have thought there would be a need for a lot of elaboration when it comes to many worlds and multiverse.

2) The Uncertainty Principle itself is also faulty, because it's based on the Kantian concept of the dialectic between the observer and the world. In reality, there is really no such distinction, especially in scientific experiments. It's because they focused too much on such as the smallest thing in the world as a particle that they came up with this principle. With the rise of many more theories: string theory, superimposition, etc., the Uncertainty Principle has done more harm than good in being too subjective.

What is "superimposition" do you mean superposition?

3) String theory. Now, in still trying to hold up the particle theory instead of forgoing it, the scientists, or theoreticians, came up with the idea of string theory, which is supposedly supposed to bring about the interconnectivity of particles. However, it would make much more sense to completely forgo the particle theory, because if you're talking about interconnectivity then you are instead talking of a more universal force. Thus, all of the electrons, protons, quarks, etc., and be thrown out of the picture.

In my limited understanding of string theory, one of the main aims was to get rid of the point particle idea.

[jackles]

what ginkgo is the point partical idea.in brief regs jackles

[Blaggard]

I'll look at it, but I am not simply going to leave behind my views toward science and academia, as you are simply using the tactic of "having an open mind" to simply denounce what's against your own shell of your own points of view. I'll admit that I am stubborn, which is indeed good when you know how to discern when to really be open mind and when to know to be critical about things.

I missed this, no you won't look at it, in fact I can be completely sure that you didn't.

You know how acadeamia and science is from what? Reading pop science? Or actually knowing any scientists? Seems to me the former is more likely. You should know that pop science is like tabloid journalism, about as accurate a means to test where a subject is at, as wonkey table is a good means to keep your best china stable.

I didn't use open mind in that manner, I explained that being open means knowing you are wrong to start with, but knowing that the game is a foot, and if fair action be brought, you may achieve something approaching something right. This is how all the scientists I know behave if they are not going to find it hard to get on in science. I can say it again if you like but the fact that being well aware you are not well aware is the starting place for science. It is not the starting place for people who just know how it all works by default, without actually knowing how it works at all. Seems you fit that category.

This is a fairly simple concept, if you want me to explain it again, please feel free to tell me your superiority and knowledge on a subject and an institution and who and from whom and all the people you base this on in science.

1) The "wave-particle duality", which is tied to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It is quite fairly obvious that when you look at pictures and actual double slit experiments, that there is merely no wave-particle duality; it is merely in fact a wave, or better yet, a natural flow of energy. This 'duality' arisen out of wanting to keep the particle theory, which is quite inefficient to at all explain phenomena when instead you should look at the universal thing that holds up all things. Thus, you have Feynman's "many worlds" interpretation, which gives rise to the 'multiverse', which is based on a misconception of what a dimension really is, as there are those who say that there are 'many dimensions', which goes hand in hand with the 'many worlds' interpretation.

You need to elaborate this in and of itself means little. It's like saying it is wrong without saying why as was already said by Gingko.

According to how you observe the particle it behaves like a wave or a particle, it's no use saying it's just not like that when it is like that.

2) The Uncertainty Principle itself is also faulty, because it's based on the Kantian concept of the dialectic between the observer and the world. In reality, there is really no such distinction, especially in scientific experiments. It's because they focused too much on such as the smallest thing in the world as a particle that they came up with this principle. With the rise of many more theories: string theory, superimposition, etc., the Uncertainty Principle has done more harm than good in being too subjective.

Again this is vague it doesn't really say anything about actual experiment or the actual 2 slit experiments, it's an opinion without any real meat on its bones.

The uncertainty principle is objective in that it is basically saying you can't be subjective: if you measure something a margin of error will be created by observing a system leaving subjectivity arguable at best. All we can objectively know (such as it is) is what we measure, being subjective is pointless.

3) String theory. Now, in still trying to hold up the particle theory instead of forgoing it, the scientists, or theoreticians, came up with the idea of string theory, which is supposedly supposed to bring about the interconnectivity of particles. However, it would make much more sense to completely forgo the particle theory, because if you're talking about interconnectivity then you are instead talking of a more universal force. Thus, all of the electrons, protons, quarks, etc., and be thrown out of the picture.

String theory has nothing to do with the particle theory, in fact it suggests the simple case of particle and wave is wrong and that there are subsets of sub atomics that are neither. It in fact states that there are these larger particles but they are governed by strings which are tiny immeasurable particles that govern these larger particles, which appear to have wave like and particle behaviours but in fact do not conform to the underlying structure of physics that strings suggest. This seems to me like you don't really get string theory.

I think it's fanciful nonsense, but I think I have more of a reason to think so. No means to ultimately judge but at least some means to reason on it.

[Ginkgo]

what ginkgo is the point partical idea.in brief regs jackles

Brief is all I can do jackles, because I have a lot of trouble in this particular area.

From a scientific point of view I guess it depends on what you are trying to predict. In quantum mechanics particles are not really particles. They are structureless rather than point like. Basically, a particles is a disturbance in a field at this level. However, thinking of particles as a point is useful in some instances and not others. For example, particles as points is useful in high energy physics.

The fly in the ointment is still gravity, and how to incorporate it into a unified theory. There are a number of candidates including quantum loop gravity and string theory. Looking at particles in terms of points is of no value in this respect, so string theory postulates that a point is really a one dimensional object that is a looped string. This does away with the need for a particle explanation.

Other people here would probably know more than I do.