reality and measurement

[nari]

I'm not sure what category to put this topic in.....

For all broad-spectrum thinking physiotherapists on Somasimple:

Niels Bohr, when he was fiddling around with quantum theory, made the following statement:

Rule 1. Nothing exists until it is measured.
(Basically, according to quantum theory, reality manifests itself in different ways depending on whether - and how - you measure it. To put it crudely, when you get up in the morning, the reality of your existence may depend on whether you look in the mirror to confirm your own reality. This, to us, is absurd....but so is Rule 1.)

An Iranian physicist Shariar Afshar has proposed Rule 2.

Rule 2. Ignore Rule 1.
(His experiment with laser light, hunting for photons, showed that a particle can be a wave as well as a particle, which is impossible according to quantum theory)

I wonder how Rule 1 and Rule 2 sits with our perceptions of the function of glia and the neuromatrix??

For the full article, see New Scientist, 24 July 2004....

Just curious.. :roll:

Nari.

[bernard]

Nari,

Could you explain quantum physics? Certainly not!
Could a Nobel prize explains quantum physics? Certainly not!
Quantum physics is a theory that intends to rely weak force with all others ones and a statement of quantum physics is that an event may be or not!

To be or not to be that is question posed by quantum physics!

Is neuromatrix exists? Perhaps?
Could you define it? Certainly not! There is myriads of them!
The best way is to describe a common material between several brains?
Is a brain understandable? Certainly not!
Does brain uses quantum physics to function? Yes! Actually, researches show that probably (but probably!) cells vision and memory storage are using also quantum physics!

[Diane]

Nari, anyway we could get to see a copy of the article you cite? Is there a link to it?

[BB]

Hi Nari and Bernard,
There is a very good book called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" that comes near this topic.

It talks about what a bad idea it is to think that things don't exist until they are described. For example, was gravity not providing its pull on us before it was described by Newton?

The book talks about our obsession with describing and categorizing and basically blames Aristotle.

One of the conclusions of the book is that Quality is undefinable, and it is quality that we should strive for. Makes me think of a song lyric that says, "I no there's no right or wrong, but I know there is good and bad."

Cory

[emad]

Hi all;

new theory and idea for me .

cheers
emad

[nari]

Diane,

There is no link that I could find (New Scientist is a bit of a bother as it rarely gives references and links).

The editor really wants you to buy the magazine...!

If Rule 2 is true - then we are probably up a gum tree trying to measure things in physiotherapy which vary from day to day and hour to hour according to a million factors...
VAS is one.


Nari

PS I guess I am coming from two angles here:
first, the need to quantify most of the clinical work we do to maintain some standardisation and credibility;
second, the real me certainly does not accept the fact that if it can't be measured, it does not exist - that would be sheer arrogance, assuming then that homo sapiens can know all there is to know.
As with the brain and the universe, we know only a tiny fraction of organic and inorganic behaviour; the trouble I have is with those I meet or read who think they know it all!!