predicting exactly how these wavicles behave is incalculable.
But that isn't true - we can do the calculations. That's prob what your physicist was ref to.
This is where words can entangle people - here, the word "exactly" is ambiguous - we can do exact calculations and exact measurements, which are the things that prove to us that at some level events are probabilistic - but not all - quantum mechanics started from the observation that the emission (and absorption) spectra of gases gave precise, discrete lines - and not a continuum such as we see in a rainbow. the spectral lines of elements are known, and known precisely.
Indeed, perceptual reality can now thought of in terms of quantum decoherence, the transition from the quantum states of a system to its manifest states that approach classical mechanics. In biology, this is really complex - far more so than simple physics experiments - but we have lasers that can penetrate brains and be either used to gain information, or, at higher powers, intervene.
Sound is not an EMF, altho there is a branch of physics of optoacoustics. IMO EMFs are more pressing, as they are everywhere and most people are just plain ignorant. another example, binaural beats work, but there was an interesting experiment done to show that it isn't the sound that superposes from our two ears, but the seemingly small magnetic field emanated by the earphones! Indeed, this is why I hate wireless speakers - they directly stimulate the brain stem, that is the path taken by waves along the auditory nerve. All "safety" tests done on headphones totally ignore this path. People's moods and states of mind can thus be affected by subliminal pulses via earphones - yet another zombie-tech.
But how can one obtain reliable results from people who are exposed to a certain frequency in a laboratory experiment, for example, and whose physical reactions can be made visible (brain waves, heart rhythm, etc.), but whose expressed sensitivities (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) must be disregarded because they are subjective?
But is the subjective, that which individually constitutes a conviction, to be neglected?
People cannot be placed on a surface like drops of water, exposed to a certain vibration and then deduce how they are doing (physically/spiritually). People do not arrange themselves in a room and form flower-like structures, do not form themselves into such visible, orderly patterns, because you cannot simply take them out of their everyday life like, for example, drops of water or crystals or bacteria, etc.
At what level would you place genetics? The "smallest building blocks of human life" (not my term), how small are they?
I read somewhere that the double helix, which is displayed so graphically accurate, appeared visually under an electron microscope for the first time and I am not at all sure where in the hierarchy of particle observation this double helix is to be placed.
I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine DNA strands (the arrangement of base pairs, if I understand correctly) in their environment. They are contained in the nuclei of cells, if I am not mistaken. Are they coiled up inside them? On the other hand, I don't think you can observe them as particles, I conceive of genetics as a mathematical, chemical science done with the help of computer technology.
Further up, in a comment to northern-tracy, I argued that a subject is not the same as an abstract subject. How would you respond to that?
The sciences of those phenomena that cannot be directly experienced by means of human sense organs are, to my mind, highly confusing.
I "understand" magnetism because it is easy to take two magnets and see what happens when you hold them against each other. It is more straightforward for me to draw further conclusions from that.
But such things as X-rays and other kinds of rays that are not directly visible, just like frequencies that are outside what my ear can hear, I find difficult to follow logically. Unless I see experiments as a film presentation, like when you expose drops of water to certain vibrations, that is, the direct result of an experimental set-up.
Sorry that I do not refer to what you else said. I may come back to it.