• Solving the metaphysical dilemma proposed by Quantum Mechanics
    143 replies, posted
man, Your highs officialy sound like a science lecture. In which means, Im taking a nap.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28684434]god damn you must have half a brain. the smallest amount of something is inherently indivisible because it's the smallest amount of something that can exist before the fact that dividing it further would deconstruct it into it's basic components [/QUOTE] I just meant that using the concept of quantum as a way to emphasize smallness, like "I don't have a quanta of respect for you!" is kind of stupid and missing the real significance behind the idea. And it doesn't mean that dividing it further would deconstruct it into its basic components, it means that it already is the basic component. and half a brain? seriously dude chill the fuck out
narrow minded would have been a better way of putting it. you're so far from thinking outside the box you're in a different box altogether
[QUOTE=tugnbud;28684430]I only go by time because its the acceptable system. It works but I wouldn't really care if it didn't exist.[/QUOTE] Your definition of time is off sir. Humans came up with a systematic way to keep track of it, but time is the movement of molecules. If you could "stop time" all you'd be doing is causing every particle in existence to stop moving. Theoretically that would stop time. Getting it started again would be impossible. Also, if you go the speed of light or faster, time would slow down to a point where it would basically stop, but technically it wouldn't. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28684228]I'm not quite sure where he got that info from, I misinterpreted his post apparently in my response, but it's possible if temperature is quantized, meaning that there is a smallest possible unit of temperature.[/QUOTE] By the late 19th century the classical world view is being challenged by a small number of physical phenomena which classical physics cannot explain. Chief among them (for our purposes) is the phenomenon known as black-body radiation. As discovered by Planck, the energy levels of incandescent bodies can be best explained if there are discrete and not continuous changes in energy levels.
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28684457]Wooooooow I am fucking ripped. Each individual moment in our consciousness, each "quanta", I guess, exists simultaneously, each having it's own experience at once and forever, and our experience of moving through time is an illusion.[/QUOTE] I have this temporal theory, suggesting that time exists in three subjective dimensions; "inception," "duration," and "termination." I honestly have no idea for the cosmological details... but, what do you guys think? I could take the rejection. Might I add, I thought about this one stoned.
Wait, I thought time was somthing man made. Life goes on... Fuck! I cant explain it in mortal tone. Checkmate god sirs.
[QUOTE=The Riddler;28684563]I have this temporal theory, suggesting that time exists in three subjective dimensions; "inception," "duration," and "termination." I honestly have no idea for the cosmological details... but, what do you guys think? I could take the rejection. Might I add, I thought of this one stoned.[/QUOTE] Thoughts might exist in these three stages, but I don't think time does. Time is a constant that can never technically be pinpointed to any exact point (yet). So therefore it can never be born or die. It's all duration man. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=tugnbud;28684580]Wait, I thought time was somthing man made. Life goes on... Fuck! I cant explain it in mortal tone. Checkmate god sirs.[/QUOTE] Time would exist with or without our knowledge of it. (I think...)
[QUOTE=The Riddler;28684563]I have this temporal theory, suggesting that time exists in three subjective dimensions; "inception," "duration," and "termination." I honestly have no idea for the cosmological details... but, what do you guys think? I could take the rejection. Might I add, I thought about this one stoned.[/QUOTE] This doesn't seem to be based in reality at all. The difference between science and actual insane conjecture is that science is real. Maybe you could explain your theory though. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=tugnbud;28684580]Wait, I thought time was somthing man made. Life goes on... Fuck! I cant explain it in mortal tone. Checkmate god sirs.[/QUOTE] Wait what the fuck
What if it's not deciding at random dude. What if it's already decided...
Then were all already dead! Technicly if time was already decided we would have no freedom in the matter of what e would do. If it isnt than timetravel into the future would be impossible because it wouldnt have been decided/happend yet. This is one subject I can join in on :3
How could evolution have happened at random to create such intelligent beings... there is no way man. This had to be pre-planned out.
Nope, Evoloution was pretty much completely at random as things evolved to have things they would need to survive in a climate and enviorment. Evoloution was pretty much hit and miss which is why alot of species died out.
[QUOTE=tugnbud;28684644]Then were all already dead! Technicly if time was already decided we would have no freedom in the matter of what e would do. If it isnt than timetravel into the future would be impossible because it wouldnt have been decided/happend yet. This is one subject I can join in on :3[/QUOTE] If time is not pre-set we could still travel into the future, we'd just have to slow ourselves down until we stop, then re-start again at the same speed we're supposed to be moving (our particles of course). You just wouldn't exist for that amount of time. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=tugnbud;28684654]Nope, Evoloution was pretty much completely at random as things evolved to have things they would need to survive in a climate and enviorment. Evoloution was pretty much hit and miss which is why alot of species died out.[/QUOTE] Right, but the fact that they evolved at all dude.
They evolved because its written in our dna to evolve and adapt. They evolved because they didnt want to die. They adapted by growing longer fur, Walking on two legs and such. We evolve because its neccasary.
[QUOTE=tugnbud;28684675]They evolved because its written in our dna to evolve and adapt. They evolved because they didnt want to die. They adapted by growing longer fur, Walking on two legs and such. We evolve because its neccasary.[/QUOTE] No no no no no no no. I understand what happened man, I just don't know HOW the dna knows to adapt. That implies that intelligence is transferred through DNA. Intelligence of how to adapt, which is way higher than anything a human can do. Can you force yourself to grow an extra leg? Or walk on your hands? Nope. You can't. But the DNA knows, so it somehow stores information, no?
[QUOTE=Meader;28684589]Thoughts might exist in these three stages, but I don't think time does. Time is a constant that can never technically be pinpointed to any exact point (yet). So therefore it can never be born or die. It's all duration man.[/QUOTE] I'm not suggesting that the termination stage is imminent or anything like that, more of that it may come, after a span of a couple more billion years or so... And I've thought about it as a constant, but I can't quite wrap my head the idea of no starting point. By the way, I am referring to our perceptual time, which is why I never got to the physical details.
[QUOTE=The Riddler;28684715]I'm not suggesting that the termination stage is imminent or anything like that, more of that it may come, after a span of a couple more billion years or so... And I've thought about it as a constant, but I can't quite wrap my head the idea of no starting point. By the way, I am referring to our perceptual time, which is why I never got to the physical details.[/QUOTE] Our perceptual time terminates when we die (assuming) and starts when we are first able to remember anything from the past, which technically, is always if we're evolving and such. We are the equivalent of millions of years of knowledge being passed down.
[QUOTE=Meader;28684724]Our perceptual time terminates when we die (assuming) and starts when we are first able to remember anything from the past, which technically, is always if we're evolving and such. We are the equivalent of millions of years of knowledge being passed down.[/QUOTE] I am in full accord with that. All part of it, see, when I said this: "I'm not suggesting that the termination stage is imminent or anything like that." I denied it in the cosmological sense. [editline]3:01[/editline] I must work on how I go about explaining my ideas concisely.
The dNa picks up on enviormental changes and it knows what to do to make the creatur survive. You could grow a extra leg if you had a weird kind of selective breeding program over a rediculous amount of years. I think this threads name needs to be: The Intellectuals thread.
DNA doesn't know "how" to adapt. Certain structures made of organic matter originally were simple self replicating patterns. Random changes would either be successful or unsuccessful. Successfully changed organisms survived and made more successful ones. There's no inherent intelligence involved. It's not like humans took a miraculous course through the muck to get here - we're just a specific random arrangement that bludgeoned it's way here through endless trial and error. There's never any intelligent theorizing with DNA. It never thinks "if I add this information, I'll develop harder skin!". There's just as much chance of developing softer skin, or an auto-cancer gene, or anything, they just aren't as likely to self replicate. Why do you think humans develop cancer and mental illnesses? Evolution is incomplete and messy. I don't understand how this is confusing, or evidence of intelligent design, at all. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Meader;28684724]Our perceptual time terminates when we die (assuming) and starts when we are first able to remember anything from the past, which technically, is always if we're evolving and such. We are the equivalent of millions of years of knowledge being passed down.[/QUOTE] What? How can we remember "always" into the past?
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28684778]DNA doesn't know "how" to adapt. Certain structures made of organic matter originally were simple self replicating patterns. Random changes would either be successful or unsuccessful. Successfully changed organisms survived and made more successful ones. There's no inherent intelligence involved. It's not like humans took a miraculous course through the muck to get here - we're just a specific random arrangement that bludgeoned it's way here through endless trial and error. There's never any intelligent theorizing with DNA. It never thinks "if I add this information, I'll develop harder skin!". There's just as much chance of developing softer skin, or an auto-cancer gene, or anything, they just aren't as likely to self replicate. Why do you think humans develop cancer and mental illnesses? Evolution is incomplete and messy. I don't understand how this is confusing, or evidence of intelligent design, at all.[/QUOTE] The fact that life came about at all...
Yeah, What meader said.
There are dense amounts of organic matter several places in this solar system that are the basis of amino acids and other complex organic molecules. With all that organic matter it's not surprising that some will find itself in a self replicating arrangement. On top of this I have no idea what you could theorize as an alternative. With intelligent design you must explain the origin of the intelligent designer.
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28684778] What? How can we remember "always" into the past?[/QUOTE] I ask you, does the past exist? I would say no. Not anymore. It did, but it doesn't now. Therefore does it matter? [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Barblunder;28684858]There are dense amounts of organic matter several places in this solar system that are the basis of amino acids and other complex organic molecules. With all that organic matter it's not surprising that some will find itself in a self replicating arrangement.[/QUOTE] Inanimate objects coming to life and duplicating. Oh yea, that was SURE to happen. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] btw if I sound sarcastic, it's not in a mean way I promise. :D
The past does exist - everything you see and experience is the past. It's the set of material that exists that is emitting light to the present. Aside from that, though, your post seems irrelevant. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Meader;28684860]Inanimate objects coming to life and duplicating. Oh yea, that was SURE to happen.[/QUOTE] You make it sound like "coming to life" and duplicating are two seperate events. Duplication is the basis for all life. And yes, it seems that given the right environment over a long enough period of time, it is sure to happen.
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28684911]The past does exist - everything you see and experience is the past. It's the set of material that exists that is emitting light to the present. Aside from that, though, your post seems irrelevant. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] You make it sound like "coming to life" and duplicating are two seperate events. Duplication is the basis for all life. And yes, it seems that given the right environment over a long enough period of time, it is sure to happen.[/QUOTE] The fact that things exist at all is proof enough to me that there is something (call it nature, god, God, or science, SOMETHING) bigger than I or anyone else will ever be able to conceive. That's my idea of intelligent design. And we are in the present. True, everything we see is actually NOT what is really happening, but as humans we take into account for this lag, which is based off of distance, therefore relative. Time for you is different than time for someone 10 minutes away, or 10,000 lightyears away.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683784]No, just no, without even so much as a "prove that assertion" is utterly useless. It gives no information other than that you disagree. There's a button for that.[/QUOTE] But I didn't just disagree, you were wrong. Like, lmgtfy-wrong. Not worth arguing about. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683784]My quote describes that. It wasn't beating around the bush. If Copenhagen is correct, it means quantum mechanics operates on a purely probabilistic basis. We can't describe anything except by the likelihood of its occurrence. It makes a physical and mathematical difference in terms of the nature of the universe and how and how precisely we can describe it and its time evolution. Multiverse theory posits that it's not probabilistic at all. Each possible outcome described by the wavefunction of a particle is contained in some separate universe somewhere. If we can study the mechanism by which the multiverse "chooses" which universe to put us in, which choice it took, we can, in principle, derive the entire time evolution of the universe with perfect accuracy, which is utterly impossible if it's fundamentally probabilistic. Determinism isn't just the jurisdiction of philosophy. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] Whether the description of a particle's behavior stops at the wavefunction being a probability or there's some hidden deterministic mechanism and hidden variables guiding its behavior (which is predicted in more interpretations than just many-worlds) has absolute physical significance in that there can be laws more fundamental to how a particle behaves than the wave equation. (or equally as fundamental)[/QUOTE] So essentially the supposed purpose of the entire multiverse theory can be abbreviated into the hypothesis "quantum mechanics are deterministic". You don't need any metaphysical concept for that. <insert link to wikipedia article on Occam's Razor>
[QUOTE=Lenni;28684981] So essentially the supposed purpose of the entire multiverse theory can be abbreviated into the hypothesis "quantum mechanics are deterministic". You don't need any metaphysical concept for that. <insert link to wikipedia article on Occam's Razor>[/QUOTE] In the quantum formalism, states are represented not as particles but mathematically as waves. So one way of characterizing the challenge of how we are to interpret the formalism is to ask how we are to understand quantum waves. The problem comes into sharp focus if we look at quantum state evolution, of which there are two types. The first type of state evolution is deterministic, yet the second type of state evolution is indeterministic. That's the problem. So our initial question of how we are to understand quantum waves now focuses on how we are to make sense of the collapse of the wave packet.
Guys, You lost me again. Now I cant join in :'(
[QUOTE=Meader;28685017]In the quantum formalism, states are represented not as particles but mathematically as waves. So one way of characterizing the challenge of how we are to interpret the formalism is to ask how we are to understand quantum waves. The problem comes into sharp focus if we look at quantum state evolution, of which there are two types. The first type of state evolution is deterministic, yet the second type of state evolution is indeterministic. That's the problem. So our initial question of how we are to understand quantum waves now focuses on how we are to make sense of the collapse of the wave packet.[/QUOTE] By types of quantum state evolution I assume you mean the states of having wave-properties versus having particle-properties. We understand each type of state evolution. We understand when each type of state evolution is relevant. We can predict the behaviour of both wave and particle states perfectly well. The rest is just packaging, which does have its own merit, but has nothing to do with science per say, and no matter how we choose to explain it, the physical manifestations will remain the same.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.