Thought vs Matter/Energy

[lateralsuz]

In his book 'Our Existence Part 1 : The Nature and Origin of Physical Matter", Christophe Finipolscie explores a major distinction between the alternate philosophies of Existence - relating to 'Causality'. One phrase he gives us is this:-

"Thought is the only thing that can cause Matter/Energy to deviate from its inevitable chemical path."

I love this quote, but I'm intrigued to see whether you feel this might be true?

To provide a context, Finipolscie argues that ….

Materialism and Determinism are firmly based on the strict scientific principle that "A single precise starting point can only have one precise outcome'. From this, many senior physicists will talk about the inevitability of activity within matter/energy. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is true within Matter/Energy, and it is a prime reason why science is able to use mathematics to define its theories.

All alternate viewpoints, to varying degrees, suggest that true change is possible, and therefore outcomes are not inevitable. Indeed, this is the basis of Free Will - on which we structure the laws of our society.

Finipolscie argues that true/fundamental change either requires

Spontaneity - actions without a prior cause
Randomness - actions where more than one outcome is possible

ie. the opposites of cause & effect.

He is effectively placing the old philosophical debate on a scientific footing.

While he acknowledges that the easiest examples of spontaneity or randomness are potentially found in Thought, he also he provides a series of scientific findings from the past 50 years or so, which suggest that randomness or spontaneity may truly be occurring - although they seem rare events in the purely physical rather than mental realm.

Do you feel that the old philosophical debate is still valid?

[davidm]

Based on what you have written here, it seems your author thinks that the only choices on offer are agent-causal (contra-causal) libertarianism, or else hard determinism. This is a bifurcation fallacy. Has he ever heard of compatibilism? Or neo-Humeanism?

[charon]

I don't quite see why it should be thought versus matter/energy. Isn't thought also matter/energy?

[lateralsuz]

davidm

The author doesn't present a binary choice.

If you read the books, he takes a very pro-science approach but explores the different ways in which the evidence might be interpreted - leaving the reader to choose their preferred interpretation while being aware of the others.

He uses materialism/determinism vs 'Idealism' to mark different extremes along the full range of different philosophies.

I like this approach - and I like some of his one liners, but I'd say he was 'an' author rather than 'my' author.

[lateralsuz]

Hello charon

I don't quite see why it should be thought versus matter/energy. Isn't thought also matter/energy?

The argument presented in the books is that Thought has some familiar characteristics which might not be explained by strict causality. If you accept those examples, then he suggests that logically, Thought may not come entirely from matter/energy if the latter is entirely bound by strict causality.

He then presents more potential examples of randomness and spontaneity from scientific findings in a range of fields - and if these are also not unreasonable to consider that way, then he argues that there would be more evidence of this broader capability as a real factor in existence as a whole. It could explain a lot of things that currently defy explanation.

Referring to this factor as 'another type of stuff' with different capabilities to matter/energy, (as a simple way of considering the possibilities), he acknowledges that if we truly see randomness and spontaneity at the quantum level of existence then the notion of another type of stuff may actually just represent different levels of existence. However there is a real question over whether the unpredictability of quantum effects truly represents randomness or a merely the causal influence of an unknown factors

He also indicates how the different factors might fit within different philosophies.

Hope this makes some sense.

[charon]

But everything is energy/matter. That's what life is. Energy forms are material and thought is material. There's nothing else it could be.

I think he's trying to make the facts fit the theory.

[lateralsuz]

Charon, you clearly believe that matter/energy is everything, and that is fine for you, but that is clearly not the only philosophy. This is a philosophy forum - you should know this. Dualism, the many forms of Pluralism, the many shades of grey in between should be clear evidence of this.

When there is scientific evidence to suggest that there may be other types of stuff because matter/energy can't provide an explanation of proven facts, due to matters of underlying principle, then are scientist not obliged to test the alternatives?

That was indeed attempted by Gisin and others in their experiments to test Bell's Theorem and get rid of this 'other stuff nonsense' once and for all - yet the results always go the wrong way.

This may indicate other hidden properties of matter/energy in your eyes, but it is a more natural line of thinking to suggest that properties which defy the defining principles of matter/energy might indeed point to a secondary influence - another type of stuff.

Isn't that part of the wonder of science - that true facts open us to new possibilities?

[charon]

lateralsuz -

you clearly believe that matter/energy is everything, and that is fine for you, but that is clearly not the only philosophy

Philosophy? This has nothing to do with philosophy, it's to do with scientific, physical facts.

[davidm]

When there is scientific evidence to suggest that there may be other types of stuff because matter/energy can't provide an explanation of proven facts. …

What are these “other types of stuff” that matter/energy “can’t” explain, as opposed to “has not yet explained”?

… due to matters of underlying principle …

What “underlying principle”?

… then are scientist not obliged to test the alternatives?

Sure. Just explain, with specificity, what “other types of stuff” exist that matter and energy can’t explain; what “underlying principle” you are talking about; and what alternatives are there, that scientists are supposed to “test”? And how can scientists test them?

[TheVat]

Lateral --

What I just posted in Biology forum, regarding supporting claims and defining terms, applies here as well.

And allusions to dualism (Cartesian or otherwise), a philosophy largely discredited in the last 300 years, don't really fly here unless you are in possession of some extraordinary revelation that will overthrow all of physics. I recommend you check the SEP on objections to dualism, first.

[davidm]

I suppose I can venture a stab at what lateralsuz is trying get at, despite his maddeningly vague terminology in this and other threads, like “can’t explain,” “underlying principle,” and the ever-undefined “control.”

He might be talking about Chalmers’ “hard problem of consciousness." Chalmers contends that science cannot explain, even in principle, how consciousness arises from configurations of matter and energy, and more specifically, how qualia emerge — the felt experience of the redness of a rose, its sweet aroma, the tactile prickiness of its thorns, and so on.

Before going on, I should think that this sort of discussion doesn’t really belong in a “philosophy of science” forum, which, I think, deals with the philosophy underpinning the various scientific methodologies — demarcation, underdeterminism, auxiliary hypotheses, the pessimistic induction, etc. I think a better fit for a discussion like this would be General Philosophy.

Now I think there is something to be addressed here, as I have indicated in other threads. If we ask, what is a rose, we generally begin by describing our sensory experience of it — red, sweet, prickly, etc.

Yet it must, I think, be acknowledged that these descriptors exist only in the mind — red, sweet, prickly, etc., do not exist outside sensory organs and brains/minds. None of these qualities are intrinsic to a rose — they could not be. Different brains with different sensory organs would experience a different rose — a brain with eyes that saw in different wavelengths, for example, would not see the rose as red, but some other color, perhaps unimaginable to humans. Pigeons have primary five color receptors compared with our three — what color is a rose to them? Since they have two extra primary-color receptors, they must see colors that we cannot even conceive. Hundreds of millions of them, in fact, since all colors arise from irreducible primary colors (three for us, five for pigeons).

If we look at a rose from a reductionist, scientific point of view, we can hold that intrinsically, it is a bunch of atoms, or quantum fields, or suchlike. Yet even here, we must acknowledge, I think, that concepts like “atoms” and “quantum fields” are models, mediated yet again through our particular sense organs and cognitive architecture. A different, alien intelligence might have no such concepts, but different concepts that make perfect sense to them, yet perhaps would be incommunicable to us — as ours might be to them. Many even contest the idea that we can use math to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligence — see: Underdeterminism (II), and Would Aliens Understand Lambda Calculus?

Chalmers’ opponents generally fall into two camps: those who contest his claim that science cannot explain, even in principle, how consciousness/qualia arise from matter and energy; and those who contend that there is literally nothing to explain — that once you have a functionalist account of how brains work, as we do (and as Chalmers acknowledges that we do), then consciousness and qualia simply fall out of functionalism. This is the stance that Dennett takes, and the biochemist Larry Moran, and I believe also the biologist Jerry Coyne. This stance is called eliminativism. But this functionalist account, and its associated eliminativism, is precisely what Chalmers denies, and takes great pains to try to discredit. So an issue is joined here, one where science and philosophy at least partly overlap.

I partly agree with Chalmers. I agree that functionalism/eliminativism is not an explanation for consciousness/qualia. To say that it is, would be like saying that “gravity” is an explanation for why things fall. Consider: we observe how the brain functions … therefore, consciousness/qualia! And: we observe that gravity exists … therefore, things fall!

But neither is an explanation. Newton mathematically described gravity, but even he acknowledged that he was troubled by, and could not explain, this seemingly magical “force at a distance” that makes things fall toward one another. But later Einstein came along and DID provide an explanation, which seems sufficient: that gravity is a fictitious force, and the “falling” is explained by geodesics in curved spacetime.

I do not yet think we have an Einstein for consciousness/qualia.

But here is where I disagree with Chalmers: I do not think he has shown that it is impossible, even in principle, to have an Einstein for the explanation of consciousness/qualia.

If we reject dualism, as I think we should, what other explanations might be on offer, even provisionally?

Panpsychism seems to be exhibiting a minor resurgence. I believe it is successfully shredded by Jerry Coyne here, and by Sabine Hossenfelder here.

Metaphysical idealism, which I have raised before, and which bears some relation to panpsychism, is the idea the world consists primarily, and perhaps entirely, of mental states. In sum, it holds that brains supervene on minds, rather than minds supervening on brains, the stance of metaphysical naturalism. But, since, so far as I can tell, metaphysical idealism is empirically indistinguishable from metaphysical naturalism, and makes no testable predictions that differ from MN, then I cannot see what there is to scientifically recommend it. Of course, in this, MI vs. MN seems to be no different from Copenhagen vs. Everett in QM, and people still squabble over that one.

Bottom line, or so it seems to me: we have an unsolved mystery! But that is what makes science (and philosophy) so damned interesting — both are constantly works in progress, and the joy is in the journey more than in the destination. After all, how boring would it be if we knew everything? I feel sorry for God — in being infinitely knowledgeable, he must also be infinitely bored.

[Dave_C]

Molecular interactions do not have a specific “inevitable” (chemical) path, only a probability of following a given path. Tally up all those probabilities and given billions of interactions, we get classical mechanics and those interactions between huge numbers of molecules becomes “deterministic”. But at the lowest level where 1 molecule interacts with another, there is no inevitability, only probability.

Engineers, scientists, neuroscientists, meteorologists, etc… use the concepts of classical mechanics to predict how natural phenomena occur. Those analysis are ‘deterministic’ because they use classical mechanics. That isn’t to say the analysis done predicts exactly how nature behaves, only the analysis done is correct to the degree of accuracy that the model approaches reality.

One of the most significant logical dilemmas we’re faced with regarding the “hard problem” regards epiphenomenalism. There are many other dilemmas, and I might change my mind tomorrow regarding which is most significant… but let’s discuss that tomorrow. Consider that if neuroscience has everything correct regarding how the brain produces behavior, then there is a fully reductionist philosophy at work that can demonstrate, in principal, how our behavior emerges from the interactions of neurons. And since that’s true, it follows that our behavior follows from those neuron interactions which chug along independently of any allegedly higher level “emergent” phenomenon such as subjective experience (ie: qualia). If our behavior, our reports of experiences, actually match those emergent phenomena, then it is purely by accident. Those higher level phenomena can not influence the lower level ‘parts’ (ie: neurons). They are epiphenomenal.

Given what we know about neuron interactions and our philosophy of nature (science), suggesting we have a solution for the hard problem does not follow.

[lateralsuz]

The Vat

And allusions to dualism (Cartesian or otherwise), a philosophy largely discredited in the last 300 years, don't really fly here unless you are in possession of some extraordinary revelation that will overthrow all of physics. I recommend you check the SEP on objections to dualism, first.

I agree, dualism was discredited for a long time, but when scientific facts emerge which re-open the possibilities, shouldn't we accept the science and delve deeper to find the physical truth rather than fall back onto pre-conceived notions that no longer match the evidence.

For instance, the Quantum Eraser experiments, (by Kim, Yulik, Shih, &Skully in 1999) as well as the original 'Dual Slit' experiments, have presented us with 'wave particle duality' - the dilemma that things which we had previously seen as physical particles might actually be able to switch into a wave form in anticipation of a barrier containing a variable number of holes that it hasn't yet encountered...
This has always been seen as unsatisfactory, and yet the same facts could be perfectly explained by the presence of a different type of stuff. I agree that we can't detect anything as yet, but the reason why we find things is that we see effects and go looking for a cause. Where the effects defy the outcomes predicted by current principles - it seems valid to consider looking elsewhere.

In addition, I might point to Alain Aspect's experiments in 1981 and 1982 which tested Bells Theorem and came up with the wrong answer according to determinist theory (eg. " Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem" by Aspect, grangier, and Roger - Phyical Reviews Letters 1981). Or what about Gisin's 'faster than light' experiments, on the apparent connectivity between entangled photon pairs when he sent them at the speed of light in opposite directions and then detected near instant influence/communications over large distances estimated at over 10,000 times the speed of light? (Described in "Violation of Bells INequalities by photons more than 10km apart" by Tittel, Brendel, Zbinden and Gisin (1998) Physical Review Letters).

[Serpent]

Diversion to 'Psychology' --
Do you suppose there is a connection between very poor grasp of science and equally poor grasp of common courtesy? Nature, Nurture or Free Will?

[hyksos]

Materialism and Determinism are firmly based on the strict scientific principle that "A single precise starting point can only have one precise outcome'. From this, many senior physicists will talk about the inevitability of activity within matter/energy.

I'm afraid to tell you that no physicists of today talk about some kind of "inevitability of activity". The so-called "strict scientific principle" is not part of science.

The principle you are referring to has a name in the Philosophy of Science. It is called Laplacianism.

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

-- Pierre Simon Laplace (1814)

Laplacianism was demonstrated to be physically false in an experiment carried out in Delft , Netherlands. It was the first experiment of its kind. A loophole-free test of Bell's inequalities. This was done in 2015. The results were repeated in Colorado and likely in Japan and Australia as well.

While the experiment itself involved the physical process called "entanglement" the philosophical import is more compelling. The universe we live in is not a machine. There are no little gears turning gears in lockstep so that all outcomes are mechanically determined.

Even without making any claims about the true nature of the deterministic gears that underlie reality, we know that if they did exist, then Bell's Inequalities would be fulfilled by nature. But nature has violated those inequalities, repeatedly so, in every experiment meant to test them. Nature violated them again in 2015 in Netherlands.

People who continue to assert that phenomena of nature can be explained deterministically in terms of some as-yet-undiscovered mechanical gear things, are called Hidden Variable Theorists. In 2020, being an HVT is practically a sneer. It it the physicist-equivalent of calling someone a communist.

In condensed matter physics, lab technology has gained the ability to measure changes in temperature to smaller than billionths of a kelvin above absolute zero. At that level of coldness, "temperature" and "heat" are defined in strange ways alien to their defns given in high school textbooks. If you nose around published articles in CMP journals, you will see that they can now measure a "residual heat" that results from cold electrons being nudged around by inexplicable fluctuations. These "fluctuations" are understood to be tiny oscillations in the vacuum of space.

A CMP abstract contains verbiage like ,

The deviations from the mean-field strength are due to random vacuum fluctuations.

Sentences like that one are not opinions. You cannot state your opinion in the abstract of a published paper. Vacuum fluctuations are not just mathematical objects or speculative late-night ponderings. They have been observed in labs.

Spontaneity - actions without a prior cause
Randomness - actions where more than one outcome is possible

As far as I'm concerned, Spontaneity is now part of empirical science.

[lateralsuz]

Hi Hyksos

I'm afraid to tell you that no physicists of today talk about some kind of "inevitability of activity". The so-called "strict scientific principle" is not part of science.

I am sorry - but that is blatantly incorrect. There are many senior theoretical physicists who say exactly that. By way of a quick example see Lecture by Dr.Nima Arkani-Hamed, a leading particle physicist based at Princeton Institute for Advanced Study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE

I am glad that you feel that spontaneity and randomness do form part of science. I think they do too - but that effectively resurrects the old philosophical debates.

[hyksos]

I know Nima Arkani-Hamed. I have been following him since before he lost weight. I watch his lectures for classes at Harvard. I literally have videos of him I uploaded to my own youtube channel.

You have linked a 90-minute video. Could you isolate the place in that video where he says what you claim?

[TheVat]

What I'm not getting is how the acausal nature of quantum events (beta decay, say) would open the door to any kind of philosophic dualism. Indeed, spontaneity would seem to eliminate the need for some sort of metaphysical hidden variable. Prediction becomes stochastic and simply has nothing to say about which neutron will emit an electron and become a proton. There is no macro-level causality going on at all, no little imp rushing around kicking select neutrons in the butt.

[lateralsuz]

Hi Hyksos

I have been following him since before he lost weight.

Love it - brilliant!

The relevant clip is only a short way in - he says the words around 5mins 20sec on the full video. If you carry on to 6min 15sec he also says that 'everyone agrees that 'spacetime' is dead' and needs to be replaced.

[lateralsuz]

The Vat

As I understand things, the reason why quantum mechanics uses probability instead of firm equations, is because we can't see what's going on inside an atom - we can only try to detect effects and infer something from them.

The determinist core of scientific interpretation, (per the example of Arkani-Hamed above), is that there must be a determinist cause to different outcomes - but in your example we just can't see what it is.

Yet there are examples which we find in science that do seem to break the determinist model through the need for true spontaneity or randomness, (examples scattered across Wikipedia but - dare I say it - seemingly brought together in the 'Our Existence' books - which provide a great overall summary). These imply that if physical matter/energy as described by science, can only work on the principle of strict causality, then something else (another type of stuff?) must be providing the opportunity for true spontaneity or randomness.

Remember - it is partly because of the determinist principle of strict causality, that science justifies the use of mathematical equations to describe scientific principles applicable to physical matter/energy. So because the normal maths which exclude probabilities, only provide a single outcome from any single start point, the equations and the principle would be undermined where there is true randomness of spontaneity. They couldn't work. Again if maths works well for matter/energy - you look elsewhere for things that break the principles.

This opens the possibility for other types of stuff - whether dualist, pluralist, or any other type.

[hyksos]

laterlsuz,

You are vastly confused and this whole conversation is deteriorating into a disaster of miscommunication. Doctor Arkani-Hamed at 5:20 in that lecture is talking about the inevitability of the laws of this universe , in terms of the features of those laws. He is not -- in any shape or form -- supporting nor claiming determinism in quantum mechanics.

The determinist core of scientific interpretation, (per the example of Arkani-Hamed above), is that there must be a determinist cause to different outcomes - but in your example we just can't see what it is.

No. He never says anything like this anywhere in any of his lectures, and not in the one linked either. And he has never said anything like this in any interview.

There is no "deterministic core" in science. Stop this line-of-thinking immediately.

As I understand things, the reason why quantum mechanics uses probability instead of firm equations, is because we can't see what's going on inside an atom - we can only try to detect effects and infer something from them.

You have literally just expressed a Hidden Variable Theory. And you don't even know it.

(Without getting into whether or not this is true experimentally) lets make sure you and I at least understand what the positions are. Okay?

HVTs claim the universe must be deterministic, and if there be probabilities in measurement, it is because there are features of reality that have yet to be observed by science. (nearly exactly what you just said).

Mainstream QM instead says that randomness and probability upon measurement, are exact metaphysical features of the reality we inhabit. It is NOT because there is a hidden particle not yet observed that "Transmits" the information between entangled particles. And this claim has absolutely nothing to do with the technological ability to "see inside an atom".

Doctor Nima Arkani-Hamed is a mainstream scientist. He has long ago in his lifetime already accepted the reality of randomness and quantum probability, and has moved far beyond it.

[hyksos]

Remember - it is partly because of the determinist principle of strict causality, that science justifies the use of mathematical equations to describe scientific principles applicable to physical matter/energy. So because the normal maths which exclude probabilities, only provide a single outcome from any single start point, the equations and the principle would be undermined where there is true randomness of spontaneity. They couldn't work. Again if maths works well for matter/energy - you look elsewhere for things that break the principles.

word salad that I don't have eno

[TheVat]

This, from Hyksos, expands on what I was saying in my reply to you:

You have literally just expressed a Hidden Variable Theory. And you don't even know it.

(Without getting into whether or not this is true experimentally) lets make sure you and I at least understand what the positions are. Okay?

HVTs claim the universe must be deterministic, and if there be probabilities in measurement, it is because there are features of reality that have yet to be observed by science. (nearly exactly what you just said).

Mainstream QM instead says that randomness and probability upon measurement, are exact metaphysical features of the reality we inhabit. It is NOT because there is a hidden particle not yet observed that "Transmits" the information between entangled particles. And this claim has absolutely nothing to do with the technological ability to "see inside an atom".

Per QT, the physical universe does not follow a "principle of strict causality."

[hyksos]

I have learned over the years a number of lessons about how to interact with people on the internet. I really don't want to turn the poster, lateralsuz, into the topic of a thread. Things go so much better when conversations remain stricrtly topical.

Neverthless, I should have seen some warning signs, including some references to "principles" that do not exist in physics, science, and not even in philosophy of science. lateralsuz has even added qualifiers to them like "strict" attached "strict principle".

It could explain a lot of things that currently defy explanation.

This is perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back. A "broken camel" means that I am forced (against my better judgement) to turn a thread into a person, and disengage the topic to some extent. My apologies ahead of time.

So here's the situation and context of human civilization in 2020 AD.

No phenomenon is observed in nature that has no explanation.

Let me repeat that.

Human civilization does not observe any phenomenon that defies explanation.

There does exist not a single experiment that outwardly contradicts Quantum Field theory. There does not exist a single experiment that contradicts the predictions of General Relativity.

In the 1800s, there were still repeatable physical phenomenon that defied explanation. In fact, in 1915 thereabouts, nobody knew why electrons do not just spiral into the nucleus of atoms. That phenomenon defied explanation. The answer requires tools from Quantum Mechanics about the "ground state" of an electron wave.

I will list three physics labs most likely to observe something that defies explanation :

(o) Large Hadron Collider. https://home.cern/science/accelerators/ ... n-collider
(o) IceCube https://icecube.wisc.edu/
(o) LISA https://www.elisascience.org/

If a lab produced an event that defies physical explanation, the news of it would reverberate around the world six times. I would be the first person to hear about it, because I consume science news like a fiend.

The last time I remember something like that happening, was when they had data that seemed to suggest that neutrinos arriving at a waystation in Italy were getting there faster than the speed of light. Ironically, the error was found to be due to clocks in orbit, who had not adjusted their times to account for relativistic effects of gravity. Ironic -- because the mistake ended up confirming Einstein rather than defying him.

My claim is clear. Human civ in 2020AD does not observe inexplicable phenomena. I will break with good conversation and list some common rebuttals to the claim.

($) "Abiogenesis is not explained!" : Abiogenesis is not observed.

($) "The Big Bang cannot explain why there is more matter than anti-matter!" : The Big Bang is not observed.

($) "Physics cannot explain dark matter!" : Dark matter is not observed.

Okay so lets corral our horses.

He then presents more potential examples of randomness and spontaneity from scientific findings in a range of fields - and if these are also not unreasonable to consider that way, then he argues that there would be more evidence of this broader capability as a real factor in existence as a whole. It could explain a lot of things that currently defy explanation.

With all due respect, this new poster to this forum is under a heavy and entirely reasonable obligation to submit a comprehensive bullet-point list of these items which ...

(1) .. are "scientific findings"
(2) .. defy explanation
(3) .. are perfectly explained by spontaneity.

Like, lets stop painting in broad fuzzy brushstrokes and get down to concrete.

So laterallsuz, the ball is in your court. Give us an example of a phenomena observed in nature that defies all explanation, is a scientific finding, and that you alone possess the special explanation for.

Or give us several.. you claimed there are many. What are you talking about? Tell us!

[charon]

Give us an example of a phenomena observed in nature that defies all explanation

How do bicycles stay up by themselves?

https://www.fastcompany.com/3062239/the ... -heres-why

[hyksos]

Give us an example of a phenomena observed in nature that defies all explanation

How do bicycles stay up by themselves?

https://www.fastcompany.com/3062239/the ... -heres-why

There were some "prevailing" theories that explained why airplanes have lift. There are two different theories and any given scientist would usually be a proponent of one of them , and not the other. IN some cases, a specialist in aerodynamics wouldn't even have heard of the other theory.

Just this year, 2020, an article was finally published in Scientific American that explains that both effects play some kind of role in lift.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

[TheVat]

I had just started reading my February copy, with that article, when I saw this post. I was happy to discover that aerodynamic lift was not maintained by passengers intensely thinking "dear God please don't crash" and thus exerting a telekinetic force on the wings. I remain convinced, however, that science can never explain why airline nuts are always stale and there is always a bored eight year old kicking the back of your seat and a totally checked-out parent beside them.

[Serpent]

I had just started reading my February copy, with that article, when I saw this post. I was happy to discover that aerodynamic lift was not maintained by passengers intensely thinking "dear God please don't crash" and thus exerting a telekinetic force on the wings.

Reg Prescott will soon fix that little misconception!

I remain convinced, however, that science can never explain why airline nuts are always stale and there is always a bored eight year old kicking the back of your seat and a totally checked-out parent beside them.

Because that's not a scientific question. Economics can answer it quite satisfactorily.
No, Economics is not a science - it deal with matters that defy reason.

[bangstrom]

But the question is whether the same thing that keeps planes up is what keeps bicycles up...

... not to get distracted :-)

No one knows how either one works.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/v ... tion=click

[Serpent]

But the question is whether the same thing that keeps planes up is what keeps bicycles up...

No, it's the kick-stand. If you don't have one of those, the bicycle falls over. I've done this experiment 103 times, with and without prayer, with and without a magic wand -- same exact result.