We can "see" an electron as much we can "see" a tree. The detectors "sees" the electrons for us because our brain cannot see them, just as the eye "sees" the tree because our brain cannot see it.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
DMT in Plants
- Thread starter Ethnochemist
- Start date
These detectors don't necessarily "see" an electron but I know what you meant. There is an interaction between the chemicals and photons. This interaction is turned into an electrical input, which the brain then interprerates (many patterns of electrical input) to create experience. We can never truly see, hear, taste, touch, smell anything of the physical world because these are things of the mind. They represent interactions between the sensory organs and the physical world but there is no such thing as color, taste, sound, smell in the physical world. We can never know what it is like it is impossible there are several huge barriers. But our entire notion of what an electron theoretically looks like is based of experimental interactions, we can never see it go from point a to point b. And to "see" it we have to interact with it and change what it is doing. So we only know what it looks like when it interacts with the detector we can never know what it looks like at other times. (This is one of the foundations of Q mechanics).
Science is not bullshit. True we don't know exactly what it is we are explaining as described above, but we are explaining something that is real, our explanations may be only relevant to us but they are still facts in that sense. We are describing something, it exists, we have a good model regarding how it exists relative to our view of the universe. We can figure out how things interact on certain levels, especially the organism level. Even if all reality is information, we are still explaining how the information interacts, it is still true and relative on our level. But in some sense your are correct phlux, but for this discussion we know these things to be true, the underlying information is a philosophical question. You can understand a website without knowing the code behind it. They are both true, it is all relative.
Science is not bullshit. True we don't know exactly what it is we are explaining as described above, but we are explaining something that is real, our explanations may be only relevant to us but they are still facts in that sense. We are describing something, it exists, we have a good model regarding how it exists relative to our view of the universe. We can figure out how things interact on certain levels, especially the organism level. Even if all reality is information, we are still explaining how the information interacts, it is still true and relative on our level. But in some sense your are correct phlux, but for this discussion we know these things to be true, the underlying information is a philosophical question. You can understand a website without knowing the code behind it. They are both true, it is all relative.
Yeah, exactly. "see"= sense something somehow the way I meant it.
there's a whole issue with Q Mechanics which is that all these particles are defined as wave functions, which means they are probabilistic. But Q mechanics never states why, out of all of those possibilities, some end up being the truth. Like the shroedinger (sp?) cat story, where after a certain radiactive exposure the cat has a 50/50 % chance of being alive or dead. But which is it? He surely cant be dead AND alive.. The copenhagen interpretation says that there is no such thing, we only know once we looked.. But still.. if its 50/50, why did it happen one and not the other? Why out of the probabilistic possibilities, do some things take the 'formality of actually existing'?
Why not both events actually existing? Instant universe split into two parallels, one in which the cat did it and another in which the cat didn't.
endlessness said:
Well the Copenhagen interpretation says it doesn't matter why. There doesn't have to be a reason. It works so use it.
We know that an observation or measurement causes the wave function to collapse. But you are right that we don't know what constitutes an observer. But this doesn't mean QM is flawed. It just means we may not fully understand it yet, or maybe we can not understand it. QM is a definite thing, what it explains about nature is true. The shroedinger cat experiment is a thought experiment, the cat is an observer and thus this would never happen. It explains what QM would mean if it occurred on our level, but it doesn't something causes the information to collapse and be. Why it is one way and not the other? I don't know, no one does that is one of the great mysteries of Qm.
I'm going to have to say that while we can't rule out some potential function within the plant, the only reason it was ever produced in plants is because it's a relatively simple molecule to synthesize biologically and wouldn't require drastic mutation to produce, and the only reasons it's stuck around is that it hasn't done the plants any harm (hasn't inhibited reproduction), in some cases it's protected the plants (as in the case of phalaris and sheep), and in many cases it's been aided in propagation by certain animals (namely humans in S. America).
As far as electrons go, I've actually had a slight problem with this for a while. It seems to me that electrons have both qualitative and quantitative properties that people tend to confuse. Matter has what can be called a qualitatively electromagnetic property, and that property can be measured quantitatively in terms of electrons. However the idea of "particles" is something completely qualitative at its source, but we don't have any comprehension of electrons as particles in the same way we comprehend material particles. Even the idea of an electron cloud is lacking, in that we simply can't qualitatively compare material clouds to electron clouds. The theories regarding electrons as components of structures are working theories and nothing more, as electrons are not "objects," but rather are a quality of what makes an object able to be an object.
As far as electrons go, I've actually had a slight problem with this for a while. It seems to me that electrons have both qualitative and quantitative properties that people tend to confuse. Matter has what can be called a qualitatively electromagnetic property, and that property can be measured quantitatively in terms of electrons. However the idea of "particles" is something completely qualitative at its source, but we don't have any comprehension of electrons as particles in the same way we comprehend material particles. Even the idea of an electron cloud is lacking, in that we simply can't qualitatively compare material clouds to electron clouds. The theories regarding electrons as components of structures are working theories and nothing more, as electrons are not "objects," but rather are a quality of what makes an object able to be an object.
Very Well said.
Master of plants
Master of plants
Ask nature.
ComaProphet
Rising Star
Linga Sarira said:
Agreed.
I feel a deep connection to vegetation and have also believed these intelligent organism to be "dreaming" entities.