Your analogy of the out of context question of extraterrestial fruit is not a good one, in my opinion, because it’s simply an irrelevant question.

That’s the point, Doug. That’s exactly  the point.

Cheers,

-cvj

What a great post about a great event. One of the things I like most about blogs is the chance to “meet” new people. Some are interesting, some are stimulating, and some are just simply singular! K.C. Cole is singular, and I came to “know” her through a blog. Now, this Ioana. Who is she? She is singularly stunning! I would like to know if she is as proficient in her native language, as she is in English. If she is, it’s a demonstration of a level of intelligence that is almost incomprehensible to me. I hope she has a blog, or that she is willing to give us the titles of some of her films. I’ve got to know more about this woman!

I wanted to say something about the UP in mathematics. Your analogy of the out of context question of extraterrestial fruit is not a good one, in my opinion, because it’s simply an irrelevant question. We need a better analogy, one where the indeterminacy does not arise simply due to the irrelevancy of the question, but where the irrelevancy of the question arises due to a process that changes the context from one where the question is relevant to one where the same question is no longer relevant; that is, what would be deterministic in a given context, becomes indeterministic in a new, but related context, not an arbitrarily unrelated context. When it is understood that it is a process that changes the context, not an arbitrary choice, then it becomes clear that it’s the process that we want to understand most of all.

That is the why we like Heisenberg’s analogy better: When the observation of the position of an electron requires light and that light disturbs the very position information that we are seeking, then we have a context that is changed by a process: the interaction of light with the electron is a process changing the context in which the answer to the question, “what is the electron’s position?” that was formerly available is no longer available.

However, this analogy breaks down too, when we assume that the light has changed the position of the electron to another, unknown position, so that, if we try to define the position too accurately, we cannot do so due to the limitation that the requirement of light, in the observational process, imposes on us, and our point is that this is fundamentally different from saying that the position of the electron no longer exists, once the context is changed by the process.

Hence, the UP does not mean that the variable is changed from a known value to another, unknown value, by the change of context, but that the existence of the variable itself disappears in the changed context. This is the wierd part, “how can the position of the electron appear and disappear?” and it’s spooky too, in an absolutely delicious way.

As it turns out, there is a way to explain this magician’s trick that lies at the heart of fundamental principles known to all, and it has been discovered, by thinking about it, in spite of the infamous and stern admonition of the schoolmen to “shut up and calculate,” and it also comes as “a wonderful gift that we neither understand nor deserve.”

Indeed, its story would make for such a marvelous film script, but I can’t even tell it on this blog, let alone in a film. If only I knew Ioana!

-cvj

Cheers!

A

Just because something lies “outside the realm of physical science” doesn’t make it fantasy.

If something is just made up out of whole cloth, it is a fantasy. Sometimes those fantasies turn out to be -upon closer examination- backed up by verifiable and consistent experiences of others, experiments, etc. Until that time, they are fantasies. Just like when I sit down and make up a potential theory of the universe, even in a scientific context: unification of all forces, supersymmetry, violations of Lorentz invariance, whatever, in a scientific context. Until it is tested experimentally, it is a fantasy. I think that you think that I think that fantasy is a dirty word. It is not. There’s nothing wrong with fantasy -it is where a lot of wonderful things begin- but it should not be mixed up with other things that are verified.

I’ve spoken at length in the above comments about keeping an open mind, and the (sometimes) validity of people’s, (for want of a better phrase) “internal beliefs” (especially if of comfort to them, and they are not using it to decieve people, etc), etc, etc. But such open-mindedness is not to be mistaken for randomly letting any old madeup stuff (by Hollywood, a charlatan who is trying to steal your money for a miracle cure or “quick fix”, or someone trying to get you to join their cult) be mistaken for reproducible facts about the world.

I heard about the Trinity College stuff. It would be nice if it were true. I hope people look at it and find out hte origin of the effect, if there really is one. Right now… it remains fantasy. Nobody has reproduced the experiments, or looked closely at the experimentor’s controls.

Thanks for the remarks about the blog. Keep coming.

Cheers,

-cvj

In regards to your answer about the validity of psychic ability…

“But it lies outside the realm of physical science, and so in that sense is invalid. Until that changes, it remains fantasy.”

Just because something lies “outside the realm of physical science” doesn’t make it fantasy. Western science as in the scientific method and so fourth is very powerful and useful, but only one way of “proving” and “knowing.”

Repeating something in a lab is not the gold standard for truth or validity. Besides that, it’s just plain rude to call what tons of people experience every day “fantasy.” The arrogance of male dominated, western science only shoots itself in the foot.

Anyway– I came across this article about an experiment out of Trinity College, Cambridge. It deals with telephone telepathy and may be of interest.

Love the blog and your pix are first rate.

Aretha

Three nights ago ABC carried a night documentary entitled “Last days on Earth” (I think) that expounded on ways the Earth, or rather Homo Sapiens, can perish/vanish such as asteroid impact, HN51 virus, supervolcanoes, climate change, etc.

If you watched the documentary, what’s your take?

Also, I read from a chinese blog that scientists are speculating that particle accelerators can cause a micro black hole on Earth (my literal translation). Again, what’s your professional take on the matter?

Sorry to have been seen fixated on doomsday scenarios on this great Labor weekend.

As to you interesting remarks about Buddhism, I don’t think that the intent of the talk was to rank religions accrding to accountability, or any other measure…. Or at least that is not what I took away from the discussion.

Cheers,

-cvj

On monotheism and polytheism, are these two the opposite ends of our spectrum of religious belief? Where is Buddhism in which the “belief” is that everyone has the potential to ascend to buddhahood contingent upon one’s deeds in both past and present, on this scale? Isn’t this accountability at its highest?

This illustrates a larger point. It is assumed quite a lot by the general populace that scientists are some sort of robot that dismisses anything that is outside the established scientific realm as nonsense. Actually, I know very few scientists like that, and in fact count very few people who hold such views as my friends since they are just not very interesting people, in most instances I’ve met. I wish people would stop portraying scientists like that, in fact. in film, and other media. It is an all-too-common gross distortion of what is actually the case.

What scientists do is make a distinction between what is known to science and what is not. They use the scientific method as a tool for sniffing out the high volume of deception (intended or otherwise, externally or internally generated) that undeniably lies out there. They are open minded about the possibility of phenomena -that may yet lie in the murky side of things- eventually making the transition from fantasy to actual physical reproducible facts. Their existing knowledge of science and the scientific method -combined with a an open mind- helps them sort through a lot of the junk, and recognise simply wrong implications or plain fantasy bordering on lies (such as in What the Bleep….)……

But there will always be things that are very “valid” and important to the human condition that will always lie outside the realm of science. That’s ok. It is what we do with those things that we have to be careful of. And this is where most scientists feel they have to draw the line…. but it gets misinterpreted as saying those things are invalid…..Do we stand by and let them be used use to deceive people into giving their hard earned money - or hard won state of health - to someone in exchange for a miracle cure? How about letting smart mediums and fortune tellers use the science of psychology and other human behavioural cues that they can read from people to let them believe that they can predict the future, or talk to their dead loved ones? It is a fun parlour trick -most (and probably all) of it- but what happens when it gets to the point where it stops the deceived person from taking control of their own life? Taking responsibility for their own actions, etc? If that person was better equipped with a “bullshit monitor” (some basic understanding of what is known about the physical world, and what isn’t, and some basic scientific knowledge of what human signals they are giving out that are being read by the fortune teller and then told back to them…a basic understanding of the rules of deduction and inference, etc) they might be better able to protect themselves from the charlatans. Then if there really is something of value to be gained from the session, they would be better able to sort it out from the deception…….

I could go on, but I must go shopping.

-cvj

“To declare something as lying outside the realm of science is not the same as saying that it does not constitute knowledge. Science is not the only perspective from which to view the world, in my opinion. Nevertheless, perspectives that do not take into account what is already understood by science are highly deficient. On that I am 100% sure.” -you say.

yes I couldn’t agree with you more. This is one of the reasons why I am working on the relationship/interface between science, theory and filmmaking. Because I think that as film/culture theorists it’s necessary to go back and check what science has already settled as acceptable truth, and take that into account.

didn’t mean to put words or meanings in Jonathan’s mouth. I am sure his knowledge of these issues is much more extensive and profound than mine, but his presentation just spawned all these feelings and questions in my mind. I think Thursday’s event was actually an excellent example of a continuum (another word I love and am happy to have found it used by you on the blog) of modalities of communication. What you said was probably most clearly conveyed and understood, which says something about the chracteristics of scientific knowledge and the accuracy with which it can be communicated (which is not to say that it’s necessarily easy to understand). Then there’s Jonathan’s presentation, which contained a lot of facts (historical- thus scientific - knowledge) but also come choices of interpretation, of presentation, a proposal for an imaginative leap, that create a different dynamic and reaction from the audience, depending on their personal background, assumptions, cultural differences, and yes beliefs (which is why my reaction to his talk was different than yours). Finally, Chloe’s performance is at the other end of the continuum, where I am sure the experience of spectatorship was a lot more diverse among the audience than when you or Jonathan were talking. I see a dispersion of precision - or an increase in indeterminacy? - in the communication of meaning from your talk to Chloe’s performance; which is not a judgment value but an acknowledgment of the complicated ways in which the transfer of meaning is being effected in different modalities, when different tools are being used. And as KC has said in the beginning, the truth (or reality, or objectiveness) is not necessarily in the “fair balance” of all these possibilities.

ioana

But I am not convinced that only the “science” part of this great divide can claim the notion of knowledge for itself.

In fact I agree with you. Pleae note that I did not say or imply the above. You seem to have found an interpretation that was not implied. I don’t think that anyone of my colleagues from Thursday night said it either.

To declare something as lying outside the realm of science is not the same as saying that it does not constitute knowledge. Science is not the only perspective from which to view the world, in my opinion. Nevertheless, perspectives that do not take into account what is already understood by science are highly deficient. On that I am 100% sure.

As to the practice of looking at other cultures and times from the perspective of our culture and time. I completely agree that we should be aware that we are doing that. We cannot help but do that, for we are in our own culture and our own time. We must therefore be aware of the limitations of our perspective (see the Point of View series next semester), but to refrain from making any inferecens at all because they might be coloured by our perspective is a mistake. I don’t think that there was as much value judgement in Jonathan’s piece as you imply. Or, at least, there was only as much as needed to get us to step out of the Monotheistic-centric culture we find ourselves in. I should also remind you that Jonathan was not actually painting the Polytheism approach as superior to Monotheism. He went out of his way to stress that the cultures that nurture(d) them were both full of problems (e.g. extremely brutal in their own respects). His main thesis I think was that monotheism (and the extremely rigid line it takes on the matter) has several interesting (and sometimes amusing) internal inconsitencies.

Email me if you want to set up a time to meet in my office to talk about, for example, your definition of “phenomenology”… and/or talkk more about it here. Others may find it interesting enough to join the conversation.

Cheers….

-cvj

and just another small thing that I was very curious to know your opinion about: the assertion that there is a “bright line” that separates unequivocally the world of science (and implicitly, the world of objective, incontestable truth) from the world of beliefs, desires and dreams. Yes, there’s a big difference between them - and I was so happy to see that you took the time to emphasize the notion of ANALOGY on this blog. I am all for scientific rigor and accuracy. But I am not convinced that only the “science” part of this great divide can claim the notion of knowledge for itself. What happens with that 5% of knowledge that is not scientific knowledge? And I am not talking ghosts and spirits here, I am talking about things like theories that are still awaiting experimental validation, of the possibility that every responsible scientist entertains, which is that even the most well-established theories can be contradicted, re-interpreted or completely overturned; of the beliefs and intuitions that have no support in relaity but that could however be proved right, potentially, in the future; and about the beliefs that are strong enough to change reality. Granted, this is not scientific knowledge. Not at all. However, there’s something going on there. There’s something about beliefs and desires that makes us lay down our lives for them, we are so desperate to validate them. We can’t discard the reality of this, can we?

I’ve gone on for too long. Yes, I would very much love to talk to you about these issues. I am adamant about making scientifically valid assertions about science so I would love to hear more from the physicist’s mouth. In exchange, I can tell you a lot about film and filmmaking! And I’m really dying to hear what is your take on - the magic word - phenomenology. I have been reading about the biological sciences’ view of it, but I want to hear yours. Is the phenomenological view somehow “softer” than the hard-science of physics?

can I come see you in your office hours or do you prefer email :-)?

thank you for this great conversation

ioana

Wish I had been able to make it, sincerely. With the fam back from Italy it’s a bit tougher to live my “single guy” lifestyle — I’m not sure the baby would have been as enthralled with your Uncertainty Principle explanations as I would have.

Nice point to emphasize that the U.P. isn’t about not being able to do a measurement fine enough, it’s a fundamental definition of how things can be known or not known. That’s often a missed point when it’s explained.

Hopefully make the next one…

I’m guessing that you’re referring to the question about whether it is valid that there’s a lot of drama, etc, written about psychic matters, telepathy, spirits, ghosts and ghouls, etc.

I did not answer very well, since I did not know what the word “Valid” meant in the context used. If the question was asking whether it is valid to write dramas, etc, about the fantasy that such things are real, then I don’t see why not. it is fantasy. If the question is about whether those things are real, then the answer is simple. No one has consistently demonstrated that such things have any basis in anything more than stories, anecdotes, coincindences, etc. Until that changes, they remain fantasy. Dramas can be written about them, but people must remember that it is fantasy. Beliefs in such things can be comforting to some people, and that’s fine, as far as it goes. In some sense, that might make them real enough. But it lies outside the realm of physical science, and so in that sense is invalid. Until that changes, it remains fantasy. Maybe one day somebody will do some careful experiments and find that there i something we missed. But that has not happened, and unfortunately the task is made much more difficult by the fact that there are an awful lot of people out there who deceive and manipulate people who want to beleive in it.

So all I’m saying is that it has nothign to do with science. It is fantasy. Nothing invalid about writing dramas about fantasy.

Final point….. from science, we have learned that the world is such a wonderful and beautiful place, with truly mind-boggling things happening for real. I wish people would write more dramas using some of those things. Why do we need to make up the same tired old ghost stories when we’re learning about so many marvellous things about the way the world works from a real examination of our world? Some of those things are even more wild than any of us can make up in a fairy story…..

Thanks for the question!

Cheers,

-cvj

Thaks for the event last night. Just a question–Why did you choose not to answer the question about the validity of physic ability?

Thanks!

A