In Reply to: Somewhere in your analysis will we find an explanation of why... posted by clarkjohnsen on June 21, 2005 at 09:13:26:
"You have given a physical description, as a botanist might of a raspberry, but omitted the living, tasty part."I've omitted nothing; the chip is dead and tasteless to me. We're not observing a life form here, just an inert collection of well-understood molecules. That they have some sort of extraordinary powers to influence the molecular structure of adjacent inert collections of well-understood molecules is not obvious at all. There's no automatic "getting there from here" outside of anectdotal evidence both pro and con.
The idea of depletion has no more validity than the idea of them starting at all - to me, they never deplete because they never begin. All anyone has to go on so far, if you want to attempt a rational explanation, is the raspberry. It's up to you guys to explain how the chemicals in the berry react with your taste buds...the difference being that the taste of the berry can be explained without resorting to speculation that requires huge leaps of faith to get there from here.
If there is an explanation then you have to square it with the basics of what you actually know about the chip; stick with what you can know first and when and if you find the quantum arrays and lasers, then you can start talking about the possible quantum effects. It's plain common sense Clark that if you don't know if the quantum material exists, then you can't know if the quantum explanation is right. You can't "use the explanation to prove the explanation" without getting dizzy from all that circular reasoning.
Start with the fact that the quantum material exists - if it's there, you can find it. Until then, the quantum explanation needs to be dropped and another explanation based on the facts that you do know needs to come forth.
Or, another option, just say you don't know and leave it at that. If the chip has an effect for you, and you don't know why, honesty is at least respectable. Science and a methodical approach to understanding something in the physical realm isn't anyone's enemy; but neglecting the facts that can be readily known, or bending the facts to fit a pre-conceived notion does absolutely no good for anyone, yourself included. If this is indeed some new discovery, then it makes sense to find out what the mechanism is and be willing to accept the facts as they are and how you find them. Making stuff up because it sounds cool but never being able to show any proof of it (and we are talking a physical permanent pnenomenon here that can be measured) keeps you from knowing the truth as well as everyone else. Nobody benefits from that.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Somewhere in your analysis will we find an explanation of why... - Allan 10:26:00 06/21/05 (6)
- Still waiting for a reply to the below... nt - clarkjohnsen 07:59:14 06/23/05 (1)
- pssst! - bjh 11:26:23 06/23/05 (0)
- "just say you don't know and leave it at that" - BS64 10:13:38 06/22/05 (0)
- "They never deplete because they never begin." Hmmm... something circular there... - clarkjohnsen 13:17:05 06/21/05 (2)
- Same old same old - Dave Pogue 13:46:11 06/21/05 (0)
- Reason-go-'round - jbmcb 13:44:44 06/21/05 (0)