What is Real?

[junglelord]

It is much more appropriate to remember that classical mechanics cannot and does not model quantum mechanics. That does not mean one cannot make quantum models out of words and thoughts that are accurate and logical and proveable in other ways.

The quantum world while not solid is real. Dispite that fact billiard balls are solid and do spin. However we cannot use solid billiard balls and that spin to prove or disprove the quantum world non solid wave theory or quantum world solid particle theory or anything about angular momentum theory from a ball spinning. The two are not workable as scale or models. That does not mean we cannot understand the quantum world, dispite the fact the macroverse will not allow us to use large solid matter to model quantum shimmering clouds. Or that dispite the fact a car broke my neck, does not mean the quantum world is solid.

[StevenO]

Especially for Dean :

"The unique properties of three dimensional rotation creates the possibility for local high energy space elements without disturbing space around it. But the requirement is that waves have to line up, leading to quantum behaviour. These 3D spherical nodes can exchange (quantized) packets of energy between them, making (layered) tensegrity structures possible. That is why matter as we know it resides in three dimensions."

Nice property of 3D also is that it is the space allowing the highest entropy (in tensegrity structures).

Buckminster Fuller rules!

[Plasmatic]

That does not mean one cannot make quantum models out of words and thoughts that are accurate and logical and proveable in other ways.

Aside from the fact that all the words and concepts youll be using to do so wil be stolen from actual perception of concretes [or relationships of concretes to one another as in spin], how do you propose , to demonstrate the "provability" of said stolen concepts with other "logical" and "accurate" observations...

<deleted> Can you define "classical" in as explicit of terms as you are able for me?

By the way the method of dealing with arbitrary statements about invisiable existents is to dismiss them until they are proven to be with evidence of the exact claims made of "them"

[junglelord]

I use classical mechanics as understood in physics, it is a scale limitation, which is why it does not translate into a quantum world, which was not known or understood when classical mechanics was created. Classical mechanics is based on classical systems. Quantum mechanics is based on quantum systems. It is well explained in Collective Electrodynamics.

I am gald to say that the word spin is not involved in the quantum world as a equal to classical spin at the macro level. Primary angular momentum is therefore a more accurate term of the quantum primary constant, plancks constant. The two are not the same thing. Spin (primary angular momentum) of the quantum world has nothing to do with classical mechanics spin, be it planets or balls. That is because the quantum systems are not solid and are dealing with primarys which are quantum constants.

The identification of Plancks constant as quantum angular momentum has no parallel in the classical mechanics physics. It is not arbitrary, it is defineable, measureable, repeatable, and always the same. You may not agree that is real, I however see that as very real. In APM this is what creates matter from nonmaterial quantum structure with tensegrity, how cool is that? With that simple quantum constant model one can create the electron binding energy for all first shell electrons for all atomic elements...that is real.

[junglelord]

Its levels of reality. Quantum behaviour is not the same as classical behavior. Physics models behavior. Classical physics models macro systems behavior, a level of reality. Quantum physics models quantum systems behavior another level of reality. The two are very different. Both realitys are real. One is solid, one is not and for all intense purpose is a shimmering waving cloud.

[Plasmatic]

Also do you not define reality as all that exists and is real?

[junglelord]

Sounds good to me.


Very broad definition. What about the love you were going to feel for your first girlfriend for ever?
That was real? What happened too it?


If you married your first and only love, then that anology is kinda lame


Point being feelings are real, love is real. If I cut you and you feel pain, is that real> If I break your heart, are you tears not real> Again we are talking levels of reality. I think it is fair to say love is real, pain is real.

Watch this from TED. Neuroscientist has a brother with schizophrenia and suffers a stroke and has her whole world fall apart in four hours. Its very real. The pain is real, the love is real.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jilltaylor

[Plasmatic]

Ok so why do we need to refer to "levels " because the essential charachteristics are "real " and "exists" . So to say another reality or levels of reality is to say that something is "not real and nonexistent" yet is a part of reality.

Also my other question:

How does one demonstrate the provability and accurate nature of these "quantum" existents that are not classical [which is not saying much especially if their is only one "reality" which includes all that is real ]

[Plasmatic]

Ive seen the video and she should see her brothers doctor as far as im concerned. So your saying that love is akin to the nature of quantum things? is that right?

[junglelord]

All quantum constants are measureable via human intelligence and technology. The ability to apprciate that the quantum level of reality is not a macro reality seems fairly ovbious to me. I have no other way to say that. To me I see no way to not have levels of reality. What my electrons do in relationship with their nucleus is not seperate from how my liver relates to my blood, yet they are not the same. These are different levels of reality taught in every college text book of anatomy/physiology. We study organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, and therefore some atomic studies. These atomic levels of reality do not explain how the liver functions. Neither does my liver function explain atomic function.

[junglelord]

Ive seen the video and she should see her brothers doctor as far as im concerned. So your saying that love is akin to the nature of quantum things? is that right?

Your putting words in my mouth I never said. You through out a definiton of reality and asked me if I like it, I said maybe too broad, In fact I asked you if love is real, what happens to it when it disappears. I never connected love to quantum or classical, just reality. I was explaining levels of reality to you, or what they mean to me since you asked. All these levels of reality are real, yet very seperate levels. Love is not real or yes?
What happens to that love when it dies>
Was it real?>
How does love effect my electrons> or my liver?
What happens to my electrons or my liver when I lose that love?

[Plasmatic]

How does "human intelligence and technology" prove the "levels " of reality that is the difference between the "classical level" and the "quantum level" remember if reality is that which is real then the difference whould be levels of existence and realness, or existent and "somewhat exists" . So how does human intelligence and technology prove that anything somewhat exists or is somewhat real?

[junglelord]

I have answered more then several of your questions. Your turn to answers some of mine <deleted>. This is a discussion. Tell me if love is real. Tell me if electrons can explain my liver or vica verse. If not then maybe you finally understand the difference in reality, and levels.

I understand it, I cannot teach it to you, you must learn it on your own. I cannot say that I have learned anything from our discussions from you that has made me see the error of my ways. I see disconnect in yours. Sorry, but thats my reality.

How does "human intelligence and technology" prove "the "levels "

Anything repeatable and measureable is qualified as proof and real. That is science.

[Plasmatic]

<deleted>

So if love is or isnt real and electrons can or cant explain your liver, then the "levels" of "reality" which is levels of existence or realness is a valid distinction to apply in differentiating "quantum" and "classical" from one another. Is that right?

How did you "learn" these "levels" of existence and realness?

That our conceptual choices are disconnected is obvious , but does that mean one of ours is "not real" or "real on a more "existent " level?"

[junglelord]

I was taught them in school. Basic stuff in all anatomy physiology texts. Levels of reality. Levels of systems, from atomic to neurological. Levels of reality.

I love your questions, I just wondered if you cared about mine....you gonna make me cry....


you know why?

So if love is or isnt real and electrons can or cant explain your liver, then the "levels" of "reality" which is levels of existence or realness is a valid distinction to apply in differentiating "quantum" and "classical" from one another. Is that right?

You kinda feel like a lawyer
Cause you turned my question into another question, you never answered it.


you need to try to stop understanding me on your level (I really have no passion for your love of philosopy, nor any education in the study beyond Bruce Lee and one book) and answer some questions so I understand you at my level.

Is love real? Yes or no?
why do electrons not quantify to explain a liver and why can a liver not explain a electron? Why is that? If it is not so, then please tell me how we do this?

Otherwise angular momentum is real, it is not classical mechanics spin, and it does quantify as a repeatable measurement, Plancks constant, which when it is present we have matter from nonmaterial structure. Tensegrity is valid in this model. Tensegrity is a real "thing" that does scale from non material to material and is the vehicle for both.