so, while recognizing and upholding the necessity of empirical enquiry in physics,
let's think carefully about a few things for a few minutes.
acknowledging that all particles have an associated wave function,
if a phenomena demonstrates particle behaviour
then it must mean that the particle is massive. (and what is a massless particle, anyways?)
otherwise the wave function wouldn't even exist. right?
COLLAPSE!
now, uncertainty refers to measurement,
(not in the sense of the observer effect, but as the nature of what uncertainty is)
so, it provides no information about causality or a lack thereof.
(it is merely a model that is useful in predicting results)
and it seems to me that the nature of space is an important thing to determine empirically
(and we can't even answer questions related to the number of dimensions it might have)
so the proofs of uncertainty are consequently as valid as the assumptions about the nature of space that underLIE them
(this actually pulls the rug out from underneath bell's feet)
and
now
it
all
falls
apart
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE!
RIGHT?!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE!
RIGHT?! RIGHT!?
it's not that i'm claiming anything is wrong, per se
(it's more like i'm arguing that it's not even wrong at all)
but the question of whether space is continuous or discrete needs to be resolved
(in order to unite relativity with quantum mechanics)
platonic idealism as applied to mathematics is an oversimplification
(this is what godel has truly taught us)
the math itself is merely a model to imperfectly describe physical space
(one look at the banach-tarski paradox is enough to give up)
so light one up.
no empirical concept
of the underlying geometry
so, no, you CANNOT see,
the overgeneralized orthogonality
(perpendicular delusions
give arise to false conclusions)
