No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air

But the article (and common knowledge) doesn't say that the layman view of the physics (and I would be a member of that group) is unsatisfied with the concept of lift.  It is the experts who declare the competing views.  You and I strongly agree that the delineation of the forces and mass values can be modeled to create a math/logic simulation of a body in flight.

Do you see the correspondence between experts sharing their doubts with the public on flight, with their doubts on psi?  I my take is that it goes to the philosophy of science regarding what are inter-connected causes and if they exist on multiple levels.

When I mentioned the layperson I was really meaning this bit of the article:
"The objective of the nontechnical approach is to give us an intuitive understanding of the actual forces and factors that are at work in holding an airplane aloft. This approach exists not on the level of numbers and equations but rather on the level of concepts and principles that are familiar and intelligible to nonspecialists."

But I'm sure that laypeople aren't crying out in the streets for an intelligible theory of lift, and that it's experts who are arguing about which simplified description is more appropriate. If they're still arguing, I think it's probably a sign that the descriptions are too simplified.

When I mentioned the layperson I was really meaning this bit of the article:
"The objective of the nontechnical approach is to give us an intuitive understanding of the actual forces and factors that are at work in holding an airplane aloft. This approach exists not on the level of numbers and equations but rather on the level of concepts and principles that are familiar and intelligible to nonspecialists."

But I'm sure that laypeople aren't crying out in the streets for an intelligible theory of lift, and that it's experts who are arguing about which simplified description is more appropriate.

Experts - an opinionated bunch - deeply want to own the strongest dog (explanation) in the fight for THE root cause question.  Assigning causality has been an emotional outlet and mental sport for thousands of years.

I observe that laypeople ARE crying out for an intelligible (theory) process model of mind and psi.  A received science context for mind operating in everyone's natural environment must be simple and have a structured pathway for top-down effects.

The model should predict an array of paranormal experiences, measured as informational events, that generally map to observed phenomena.

Experts - an opinionated bunch - deeply want to own the strongest dog (explanation) in the fight for THE root cause question.  Assigning causality has been an emotional outlet and mental sport for thousands of years.

I observe that laypeople ARE crying out for an intelligible (theory) process model of mind and psi.  A received science context for mind operating in everyone's natural environment must be simple and have a structured pathway for top-down effects.

The model should predict an array of paranormal experiences, measured as informational events, that generally map to observed phenomena.

I think Chris is just talking about Lift?

Not Psi?

But I'm sure that laypeople aren't crying out in the streets for an intelligible theory of lift, and that it's experts who are arguing about which simplified description is more appropriate. If they're still arguing, I think it's probably a sign that the descriptions are too simplified.

I'm looking at the last paragraphs, where there is disagreement on any explanation.

I think I'll just email the author and ask them what they were trying to say - that there is no simple explanation OR that there is no explanation agree upon by physicists themselves.

I suppose in essence there is a very simple explanation for lift, which is that if the wing is up/down asymmetrical, then the flow of air and the resulting pressure field around it will also be up/down asymmetrical, and so in general there will be a net vertical component of force acting on the wing, either upwards or downwards. Put the wing the appropriate way up, and you'll have lift. But something tells me that's not the kind of simple explanation they're looking for.

We seem to be in agreement about force vectors that change the course of an object to rise above the earth.  An intuitive feel for a heavy object flying does challenge the physical sensations we have from experience with falling.

Since this is a forum for discussing psi, I hope that my pointing to an analogous framework between - being tricked by sensation - with the situation of an evolved sense of strictly physical causality can be addressed.   In past times, and in remote cultures (even today) electronic information processing is perceived as witchcraft. A strictly physical evaluation of the brain as the only causal pathway, blinds observation of anomalous effects of mind.

Is this an assertion with which you disagree?  Do you think there could be a simple process model where the sight for eyes is understood as gathering a signal and sight from an understanding mind is an interaction with reality and its changing probabilities?

To be honest, I don't particularly see an analogy with psi here. And in any case, I tend to steer clear of discussing models of psi, because I don't usually understand them.

To be honest, I don't particularly see an analogy with psi here. And in any case, I tend to steer clear of discussing models of psi, because I don't usually understand them.

Specifically, the matching exists between a lack of warranted belief in information transfer caused outside of the 5 senses (definition of paranormal) and a lack of an intuitive cause for flight -- is the old fashion conception of causality vs a modern view where causes are based on measurable probability of real world outcomes. 

 Two main trends will be distinguished: one epistemic and one empirical, corresponding to the twofold meaning characterizing probability. The epistemic type embodies the so-called classical theory put forward by Laplace as well as the logical and subjective approaches. By contrast, the frequency and propensity theories are, in theory, empirical in character.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206314532951

note: material properties are generally a class of subjective concepts

There is strong evidence for psi in terms of informational outcomes.  People know stuff from their gut and heart level feelings and these are outside of the 5 senses.  And while a Physicalist may bulk at Bayesian calculations, as not being empirical, they surely indicate real structure in nature and describe the action of mind in the environment. If they are called quasi-empirical it still satisfies scientific reasoning.

At the simplest level - and open to a general public acceptance - is the measurable activity of understanding anything.  Learning is well documented (think Piaget).  No one denies that understanding is a mental activity that has deep intuitive basis.  It is the core measurable of mental output and is a part of consciousness.

My thesis is that by measuring the activity of understanding informational objects, science is enabled.  Mind changes real world probabilities for logical behavior, communication and adding order and organization to the informational environment of living things.

Thought from the eye closes the understanding, but thought from the understanding opens the eye. (DLW 46)