I'm not asking for your attempt at apologetics.
Oh Jeez.
Ok. Terrapin Station, everything that you say in merely your attempt at apologetics for the religion called "Terrapin Station".
Is that where we want to go with this conversation?
I'm not asking for your attempt at apologetics.
In other words, no, you can't provide a citation for what I'm looking for.
The point where you characterise a description of a repeatable experiment, involving objects made of glass and metal, as "apologetics" is the point where you depart from reality. As I said, by that argument every single thing that you say is "apologetics" and every thing I cite will be dismissed as "apologetics". So conversation over.Terrapin Station wrote:I'm not asking for your attempt at apologetics.
For god's sake, read the bloody thing. Bullets are not electrons.Re the Feynman text you're referencing, he says:
"For our present purposes we would like to imagine a somewhat idealized experiment in which the bullets are not real bullets, but are indestructible bullets—they cannot break in half. In our experiment we find that bullets always arrive in lumps, and when we find something in the detector, it is always one whole bullet."
Maybe look at why that comment hit home so much that you felt compelled to respond to it twice.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 10:08 amThe point where you characterise a description of a repeatable experiment, involving objects made of glass and metal, as "apologetics" is the point where you depart from reality. As I said, by that argument every single thing that you say is "apologetics" and every thing I cite will be dismissed as "apologetics". So conversation over.Terrapin Station wrote:I'm not asking for your attempt at apologetics.
Quote a few words from the section that you think more directly addresses the epistemological question I'm asking.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 10:16 amFor god's sake, read the bloody thing. Bullets are not electrons.Re the Feynman text you're referencing, he says:
"For our present purposes we would like to imagine a somewhat idealized experiment in which the bullets are not real bullets, but are indestructible bullets—they cannot break in half. In our experiment we find that bullets always arrive in lumps, and when we find something in the detector, it is always one whole bullet."
Yes, we have grown beyond - we think and hope! - the ether. As far as we know, waves can propagate through a true vacuum, no need for any transmission medium. Which is what Terrapin Station is getting at, I think?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 9:50 am ...then we can't claim that there's nothing for a wave to propagate through.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but what I was getting at is this: Say that we're claiming there's a vacuum inside a container. Well, insofar as we place material inside that container, there's no longer a vacuum there. If we have particles traveling through the container, and there's material of whatever sort inside the container, then the particles aren't just behaving as they would in a vacuum. When they come into contact with the material we placed in the container, they're usually going to be affected by that material, as well as any fields the material might generate if we buy fields (as something that's not simply identical to material).Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 2:55 pmYes, we have grown beyond - we think and hope! - the ether. As far as we know, waves can propagate through a true vacuum, no need for any transmission medium. Which is what @Terrapin Station is getting at, I think?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 9:50 am ...then we can't claim that there's nothing for a wave to propagate through.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023