[AntonioLao]

Peaks and spikes in quantum mechanics are real manifestations of quantum states and amplitudes. For links to these topics see all of the followings: The mathematics of quantum mechanics is presented in the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics and observables are described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable. The following link describes a quantum state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state and the following describes a probability amplitude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude

Quantum states and amplitudes are complex quantities without any supported mental pictures, not even resourceful imagination can provide. Since they cannot be directly found by experimentations, they would not be able to supply concrete visualizations. Still the distinction between physical and empirical does possess philosophical content. It is this distinctive nature that this thread wishes to discuss and explore and to flesh out their relevancy to a TOE (theory of everything).

[Guille]

In what sense do you want to discuss that theme? I mean, what are your definitions of 'physical' and 'empirical'? It depends a lot on your definition, because we can know from them things like whether all empirical is physical but not all physical is empirical, or vice versa. Is what you want "to distinguish between the observational intepretations and experiences from the 'real' things"?...

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE whether all empirical is physical but not all physical is empirical, or vice versa.

I would like to define physicality as a superset and empiricity as a subset of physicality. Can I do that?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao I would like to define physicality as a superset and empiricity as a subset of physicality. Can I do that?

So all emprical is physical but not all physical is empirical. Never ask if you can do something if we are within philosophy, for there are no rules in philosophy (apart from the fact that it has to be philosophy, it cannot be religion nor science, but it can be about religion or about science). Now, what is the parts of the physical which is not empirical?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE what is the parts of the physical which is not empirical?

real numbers which include zero and negative rational and irrational numbers.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao real numbers which include zero and negative rational and irrational numbers.

That is a fast change! All of a sudden we've gone from metaphysics to the philosophy of mathematics.
What about imaginary numbers, are they physical but not empirical, or not at all physical?
And one thing, can there be anything which is empirical but not physical??

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE What about imaginary numbers, are they physical but not empirical, or not at all physical?

The funny thing about quantum mechanics is that real and imaginary when they are separated they are physical, but joint together into complex they are not physical. All empirical facts are physical because all instrumentations are physical and empirical data are the result of different instrumentations. The most natural instrumentations are our 5 senses, seeing, tasting, touching, hearing, smelling.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The funny thing about quantum mechanics is that real and imaginary when they are separated they are physical, but joint together into complex they are not physical. All empirical facts are physical because all instrumentations are physical and empirical data are the result of different instrumentations. The most natural instrumentations are our 5 senses, seeing, tasting, touching, hearing, smelling.

It does make a lot of sense that putting together real and imaginary makes them non-physical whiles separate they are physical, it relates to Baudrillard's idea of hyperreality, where things become more real than real by being both real and imaginary (like a fotoshop work, which is extract from real but is imaginary).

Now, the only possible instrumentation which would not be physical and yet it would be empirical, would be telepathy. Do you agree? Telepathy would be a mental instrument to prove the physical forms of thoughts.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE Telepathy would be a mental instrument to prove the physical forms of thoughts.

I think I'm trying to develop my telepathic extrasensory power or sixth sense but as the movies suggested only dead people have this power.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao I think I'm trying to develop my telepathic extrasensory power or sixth sense but as the movies suggested only dead people have this power.

Antonio,believe me,the movies are wrong,dead wrong?The so
called dead are very often much more alive than we are!And can move in
states or dimensions,that we have little access to.You seem to be pulling
out all the stops,developing telepathic sense will greatly assist your noble
quest!


kind regards michael.