Talk:Interconnectedness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Sources?
Any sources to back any of this up? It all seems to be opinion, and heavily influenced by rhetoric.
- This is not all OR, although some of it may be. There is a good discussion of the topic and its concepts in books. The article definitely needs cleanup and citations though. --Amit 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is amazing
Thank you whoever wrote it!
[edit] cleanup-rewrite
This mostly, if not all, appears to be original research, and much is unencylopedic. Needs complete rewrite, based on sources. --Xyzzyplugh 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Great Article
As a user I can only say that even if this article is non-encyclopedic frankly I don't care - it made me a bit wiser on the topic... and that's what I come here for.
[edit] Response to comments and edits so far
Apart from comments about the first section (which I did not write or alter - and see below) and some helpful presentational improvements (for which thanks - they were needed! - and show my 'early stages of learning' in this Wikipedia stuff!), the one major edit is that which has removed the 'Science section' (reproduced below) along with the banners and comments that the entries generally fail the 'No Original Research' test.
So, I make some comments - after reproducing, here, that excised section:
"Thus, the concept of interconnectedness flows from both science and religion:
- == Science ==
- The wave/particle duality of matter notion place every object (however locally centred) at a finite possibility/probability of being simultaneously everywhere: all at once. - Thus, a particle has an equivalent wave nature (the De Broglie hypothesis and equation helps co-relate the two), so that any particle has a discrete (but mostly) finite possibility/probability (however tiny) of being found everywhere (except at the wave functions' node(s), where the wave function (Greek 'Psi') and its square ('Psi' squared)is zero). Thus, for example, while one particular electron might be considered to be associated with one particular (particulate!) atom, its existence has a possibility/probability of being every-where else (as, likewise, does the atom itself!). - - In like vein, this is so with particles of larger mass - an apple, you, or me, as examples (even if the possibility/probability of you being 'here', and me being 'there', are tiny, they do - according to this wave/particle duality paradigm - exist."
a) Since (as the first line of the existing entry points out), this question of interconnectedness is emerging, some discussion of the/a definition of 'interconnectedness' seems necessary before the above entry relating to science is excised:
- For two things to be connected, they both must, presumably, have a locational presence (co-incident or not), and then must, also, have some detectable/definable relationship one to the other.
The excised comment (above) relates to the co-incidental nature of any two material objects (the wave particle duality concept is described in innnumerable chemistry texts - the only not-coincidental distinction that I can think of - and by implication at least, described in those texts - are at the nodes of occupied atomic and molecular orbitals).
Thus the locational test for interconnectedness is tightened to the fact of universal co-incidence for any two of all objects.
Then, in terms of the existence of the requirement for a relational aspect of interconnectedness, there is (more-over, as I think about it more), Newton's Law of Gravitational attraction: which describes the science of the relational aspect of interconnectedness that I point to above: ie, regrdless of their separation, two bodies have a gravitational attraction for one-another and, even though that attraction falls off steeply with distance (with the inverse square of the distance between them, If my ancient recollection is right), that scientific demonstration of interconnectedness/connectedness exists.
And so the excised portion might be re-introduced (and, in the light of the foregoing, expanded somewhat!).
b) The fact that the word interconnectedness exists, then some sort of Dictionary entry seems appropriate, even if the definition itself and examples of its use reflect that (this) rapidly evolutionary lexical and usage phase.
Which brings me to reflect upon the question of the nature and otherwise of the assertion that this entry is 'Original research' (and I have now read the 'Nor Original research' Wikipedia guidline page, and am caused to think very deeply about it and the content I posted here - and elsewhere).
On balance, I'd say that the (including 'my') entry here is in the blurry area - it is related to cited and pre-published works by the links to other Wikipedia entries and so is not original research, though the juxtaposition of these connected (interconnected - ! ) topics might well fall into the 'not published elsewhere category' and so is original comment - but, then, which set of Dictionary entries ever are not so!?
c) Finally, for example, if I take the initial entry lines:
"Science is coming to the view that everything in this universe is interconnected. A thing exists because there is an observer. Everything is made up of either energies or particles that flit in and out of existence at the quantum level. These particles can be thought of as events in an endless expanse of possibilities. The very act of observation makes them concrete. The universe seems to be a virtual world where everything exists as waves which assumes particulate forms when observed. The line between the observer and the observed seems to blur at the level of sentient beings like humans which can assume the role of both the observer and the observed simultaneously."
While I don't agree that existence is dependent upon the presence of another - implicitly? human - observer, I've no doubt that this reflects the - very likely published! - views of some scientists.
In consequence, this, over-all, causes me to reflect:
i) on why one editor removed the link to metaphysics?
ii) and if the 'See also' list should explicitly point to 'Paradigm'?
and, finally,
iii) to suggest we (I?) re-introduce a revised version of the excised 'Science' part.
All very interconnected!
Thanks all
Please respond
John Courtneidge
