>>Wave or particle?
>
>There you go. Examples always clarify. The way we model something does not
>mean it is a contradiction. The particle-wave simply does not fit any
>previous models of ours. But it is exactly what it is and we can
>practically count on it.
Ohm. [ringing of small bell]
>Assuming that contradictions exist is OK -- as long as you are not trying to
>be the "enlightened one" who figured them out (and is simply not able to
>communicate his wisdom). Which in fact brings us to the conclusion that for
>all practical reasons, contradictions do not exist.
Who sounds like they're on level-3 now? To translate: If a perfect sphere
looks white from one perspective and black from another then the sphere is
"exactly what it is". If the perspectives are incommesurate that is
becuase the perspectives themselves are not perfect. The object (lets call
it a platonic solid) is perfect (not in contradiction). Our senses are
also perfect (not in contradiction). Therefore, if we perceive a
contradiction that contradiction must be in our perception itself...in the
expectation that a wave cannot be a particle or that a black object cannot
simultaneously be white. The paradox is the interpretation. The solution,
therefore, is to "unpercieve" the apparent inconsistency so that when Tim
says:
>>Wave or particle?
We can respond:
Lo, the mystery of Transubstantiantion!
Bread and Host as one!
Wave and Particle as one!
There is no paradox, for:
"it is exactly what it is"
Ohm [ringing of small bell]
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------