Au contraire. For some of us, discovering something that contradicts a belief is exciting. It means something interesting is about to happen.
It’s very dangerous to assume that you’ve freed yourself from believing. It makes your remaining beliefs seem like truths.
That’s a result of emotion-based fantasy, not reason. It happens when you’re too emotionally invested in a belief that turns out to be impossible. Like the guy here who kicked his family out of the house and barricaded himself inside with a rifle to protect himself against the world. Why? He had sunk the family’s life savings into a perpetual energy battery scheme and when ultimately faced with the fact that it was impossible, his ego and pride couldn’t accept reality and he snapped.
I have yet to hear of anyone who accepted reality and then snapped when the supernatural turned out to be true.
How fluid is gravity? Everytime I throw something or drop it, it goes down, never up, and always non-fluidly at the same rate.
I agree. Nobody said anything about throwing things out on a whim and science is all about exploring - but big advances in science are slow to get traction because they require a reconsideration of old beliefs that are fought for, so vehemently.
It’s not about not believing. It’s about understanding what belief is so that new ideas don’t frighten you and people with ideas that don’t match your own or who look at things differently than you do, aren’t assumed to be your enemy. Of course, you can make them your enemy if you treat them like shit. You know how it makes YOU feel, and assuming others don’t feel the same when you do it to them, just because you think you’re right (exactly as they do), is illogical.
I may be missing a joke here. You were talking about some spiritual force and some of us opted to call it bleb. So let me step back a bit.
I don’t understand spiritual. What is spiritual? What does spiritual do? Is spiritual experienced uniformly across all people? Can spiritual be characterized and recreated based on a set procedure? What does it have to do with quintessence?
Very exciting! But it’s not dangerous unless you let the blow cripple you.
You only really get one big blow. After that, you can’t really maintain the same old death grip on a belief. Assuming, of course, you enjoyed the blow - which I love!
Obviously, not.
Sure, if you apply the appropriate rituals. You do have to find what works best for you, be it mere meditation or something more advanced, like the tarot. But it’s really more an art form than scientific method, that’s something I’ll admit right up front.
As in the punchline to that joke about cross-breeding two zoo creatures – elephino.
You won’t until you refine and advance your consciousness. Until you do any attempt to explain it would be futile.
So I’m gathering.
So is it all linear algebra then? Or rather, what share of QM entails nonlinear mathematics?
Thanks for noting that the measurement problem isn’t a high profile issue in QM. Since we’re on a new thread page, I’ll repeat my questions and clarify that they are directed towards anyone with over 4 semesters of college physics under their belt (I have zero). I believe they are pertinent towards the OP.
This kind of assumes the classical limit is the natural one and not one that emerges out of the actual quantum nature of reality. I think the calculations are dominant but they’re not an interpretation - I wait to be smacked down on these statements. 
It kind of implies that mind (consciousness is different from matter and leaves the question of how the hell quantum interactions managed without people peeking at them.
Give up on bleb, the true master of the universe is obviously ywe (rhymes with “dewy”). The doctrine of ywe (called the “ywed” – sounds like “oud”, also the name of its adherents) states:
[ul]
[li]all gods are ywe[/li][li]ywe is greater than all gods[/li][li]do not pray to or worship ywe it will only leave you frustrated[/li][li]do not give thanks to ywe, ywe is busy and gives not a tinker’s cuss about you[/li][li]use ywe’s name often, and with impunity[/li][li]abide by the single tenet of the moral code of ywed: "Yeah, What Evar, Dude[/li][/ul]
I am a recently converted ywed, I highly recommend it.
One possibility, drawn from my fevered imagination, is that particles really are only particles, existing in the form of “frustrated plaquettes”* in a gauge lattice that is a “layer” of spacetime. The wave function arises in an “eigenhalo” of non-frustrated plaquettes surrounding the frustrated plaquette that we are able to observe as the particle. Since, currently, all our equipment is based on EM, and such devices can only directly register frustrated plaquettes, we can only infer the existence of the eigenhalo of non-frustrated plaquettes, based on the apparent behavior of particles between the source and the detector.
*this is a real term; to model it mentally, picture a regular 2D lattice of ribbons: a frustrated plaquette is a square where one of the ribbons has a single twist, meaning it cannot be traversed in a single pass that leads back to the ground state – the non-frustrated plaquettes of the eigenhalo (a word I think I just cobbled up) would have an even number of twists, leading back to the ground state but not being flat/nil.
I don’t know what you mean by “nonlinear mathematics,” but the classic quantum mechanics picture deals mainly with operators on finite-dimensional spaces (e.g., spin) whose representation theory is studied. The quintessential QM system is the harmonic oscillator or the treatment of spin on the hydrogen atom: set up the Schrodinger equation, reduce to a question about L^2-representations of a certain Lie algebra, and then physics. Of course, there’s no reason why such operators have to be finite-dimensional; quantum mechanics handles position and momentum perfectly well. It’s all representation theory, I suppose, with a significant amount of perturbation theory. The situations is more complicated in quantum field theory.
Oh, are you talking about nonlinear differential equations? Operators in QM are linear (I suppose it’s ultimately it’s a consequence of the axiom of superposition), and the Schrodinger equation is a linear partial differential equation. Linear algebra is usually concerned with finite-dimensional spaces; for infinite-dimensional dimensional space, you’d want to consider spectral theory, functional analysis, etc. (In nice situations— spin, for example— wave-functions are required to live in some of the finite-dimensional representations of the Lie algebra of operators involved, conveniently reducing the problem to linear algebra once those representations are known.)