My sympathies for pantheism

[archangle]

lmao, sure you are.

Am too!!!

The ideas presented were clear based on a baseline of "professional particle physicist". In fact, you could explain where my misunderstanding is.

I like learning.

please. pretty please even.

Well, let me go through your post again and give my 2 cents or ask.

"waving" is a property. Like the color red. All matter seems to have it.

See, I don't even know what that means. It is even more confusing due to the fact that the color red is the property of a wave, namely the wavelength. So is that what you meant, or was it supposed to be a metaphor?

They can't measure its location because the particle they use to "measure" is close enough in size to the measrued particle that they can go anywhere when the hit eachother.

I might know what you mean. I was confused because afawk, elementary particles do not have measurable size, and may have zero size. What you might be alluding to is the size of the wave-packet of a particle, which is something else entirely, namely the uncertainty in its position. If you want to look at something small, you need a very narrow wave-packet, and for that you need a lot of energy, the smaller you want to look, the more energy you need to pump in.

However, whether we can measure the shape of the wave function at all, is to my knowledge a separate problem. To measure the shape of a wave function, you would have to know the probability of finding a particle at different points in space, which is thwarted by our inability to measure the particle more than once without having the wavefunction collapse as one would say in the usual interpretation. The only way out is to repeat the identical experiment very often, and gather statistics about the outcomes.

Like trying to throw a stream of baseballs to find another baseball.

But if you use a auto bb gun to "see" a truck. You would know exactly where it is and where it is going.

I'm beginning to see where you are going with this, as I said above, I don't think it's quite the same issue.

The double slit is the observation for waving. entanglement also becomes a problem at that scale..

Connection to what came above not clear to me

I think Human logic being substituted "universal logic" for how the universe work is a bad idea. It leads to some crazy sit. we don'y have any near a clear picture yet.

What is human logic and universal logic and what does it have to do with the preceding text?

Is human logic the absolute logic of the universe? I have little experience with formal logic but it seems to start at axioms. When we set the axioms in stone, then the lines of logic are indisputable. But if the axioms are in question then the line that follows can be questioned.

Like the bible as the word of god. If we set it as "yes". Then some different lines of logic make sense. For loving to hateful god. But the book is not the only word on the subject.

Now math axioms are much less ambiguous, but math is just another langue. And self evident math axioms sometimes do little to help us with "what is awareness" axioms.

How do it relate? Quantum mech seems counter intuitive. Maybe it is our axioms that are wrong and not quantum mech? I really don't know the answer to this. For now, probability seems to work.

@@@@

I tossed in waving because someone asked how do they know if they can't see them. They used the slit, easy guy, not that one.