Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages  1 2 3 > »  
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

" width="8" height="8"/> excellent quick summary of QM, from appendix to RAW's schrodingers cat
Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+
gnuneo
post Feb 7 2005, 04:32 PM
Post #1


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



GLOSSARY:

A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED



BELL'S THEOREM: A mathematical demonstration by Dr. John S. Bell, which shows that if quantum mechanics is valid, any two particles once in contact will continue to influence each other, no matter how far apart they may subsequently move. This violates Special Relativity, unless the influence between the particles is not employing any known energy.

COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION: The theory formulated by Niels Bohr, according to which the state vector (see below) should be regarded as a mathematical formalism. In other words-which some physicists will dispute- the equations of quantum mechanics do not describe what is happening in the subatomic world but what mathematical systems we need to create to think of that world.

COSMIC GLUE: A metaphor to describe the quantum interconnectedness that must exist if Bell's Theorem be valid. Coined by Dr. Nick Herbert.

E1GENSTATE: One of a finite number of states that a quantum system can be in. The Superposition Principle says that, before measurement, a system must be considered to be in all of its etgenstates; measurement selects one eigenstate.

EINSTEIN-ROSEN-PODOLSKY EFFECT: The quantum interconnectedness as described in a paper by Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. The purpose of said paper was to prove that quantum mechanics cannot be valid, since it leads to such an outlandish conclusion. Since Bell's Theorem, some physicists have chosen to accept the interconnectedness, however outlandish it may seem. See QUIP.

EVERETT-WHEELER-GRAHAM MODEL: An alternative to Bell's Theorem and the Copenhagen Interpretation. According to Everett, Wheeler, and Graham, everything that can happen to the state vector (see below) does happen to it.

FORM: In the sense of G. Spencer Brown, a mathematical or logical system necessary to systematic thought but having the inevitable consequences of imposing its own deep structures upon the experiences packaged and indexed by the form. See COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION.

HIDDEN VARIABLE: An alternative to Bell, Copenhagen, and Everett-Wheeler-Graham. As developed by Dr. David Bohm, the Hidden Variable theory assumes that quantum events are determined by a subquantum system acting outside or before the universe of space-time known to us. Dr. Evan Harris Walker and Dr. Nick Herbert have suggested that the Hidden Variable is consciousness; Dr. Jack Sarfatti suggests that it is information.

INFORMATION: A measure of the unpredictability of a message; that is, the more unpredictable a message is, the more information it contains. Since systems tend to disorder (according to the second law of thermodynamics), we can think of the degree of order in a system as the amount of information in it. Ordinarily information is transmitted as an ordering of energy (a signal), in which the energy and its ordering (the message) is transmitted from one place to another. Dr. Jack Sarfatti has suggested that the nonlocality of the ERP effect and Bell's Theorem may entail the instantaneous transfer of order from one place to another without any energy transfer. Thus we can have both Bell's Theorem and Special Relativity, since Special Relativity only prohibits the instantaneous transfer of energy and does not say anything about instantaneous transfer of information.

NEURO-: A prefix denoting "known or mediated by the nervous system." Since all human knowledge is neurological in this sense, every science may be considered a neuro-science; e.g., we have no physics but neurophysics, no psychology but neuropsychology and ultimately, no neurology but neuroneurology. But neuroneurology would itself be known by the nervous system, leading to neuro-neuroneurology etc., in an infinite regress. See VON NEUMANN'S CATASTROPHE.

NONLOCAL: Not depending upon space and time. A nonlocal effect occurs instantaneously and with no attenuation due to distance. Special Relativity seems to forbid all such non-local effects, but Bell's Theorem seems to show that quantum mechanics demands them. The only solutions thus far offered to this contradiction are that nonlocal effects involve "consciousness" rather than energy (Walker, Herbert) or that they involve "information" rather than energy (Sarfatti).

NONOBJECTIVITY: One of the two alternatives to Bell's Theorem (the other being the Everett-Wheeler-Graham model). In order to avoid nonlocality, some physicists such as Dr. John A. Wheeler prefer this option, which holds that the universe has no reality aside from observation. The extreme form of this view says "Esse est percepi"-to be is to be perceived.

POTENTIA: The name given to the presumed subquan-tum world by Dr. Werner Heisenberg. Space and time do not exist in potentia; but all the phenomena of the space-time manifold emerge from potentia. Compare with HIDDEN VARIABLE and INFORMATION.

QUANTUM: An entity whose energies occur in discrete lumps-e.g., photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field. Quanta have both wave and particle aspects, the wave aspect being the probability of detecting the particle at a certain place and time.

QUANTUM LOGIC: A system of symbolic logic not restricted to the "either it's A or it's not-A" choices of Aristotelian logic. Chiefly due to Dr. John Von Neumann and Dr. David Finkelstein, this approach evades the paradoxes of other interpretations of quantum mechanics by assuming that the universe is multivalued, not two-valued; Dr. Finkelstein expresses this by saying "In addition to a yes and a no, the universe contains a maybe." See E/GENSTATE.

QUANTUM MECHANICS: The mathematical system for describing the atomic and subatomic realm. There is no dispute about how to do quantum mechanics-i.e., calculate the probabilities within this realm. All the controversy is about what the quantum mechanics equations imply about reality, which is known as the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The principal lines of interpretation are the Copenhagen Interpretation and/or Nonobjec-tivity and/or Bell's Theorem and/or Nonlocality and/or the Everett-Wheeler-Graham multi-worlds model.

QUIP: The quantum inseparability principle. An acronym coined by Dr. Nick Herbert to refer to the nonlocality implicit in the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky argument and explicit in Bell's Theorem.

STATE VECTOR: The mathematical expression describing one of two or more states that a quantum system can be in; for instance, an electron can be in either of two spin states, called "spin up" and "spin down." The amusing thing about quantum mechanics is that each state vector can be regarded as the superposition of other state vectors.

SUPERDETERMINISM: The approach to quantum theory urged by Dr. Fritjof Capra in The Tao of Physics. This interpretation rejects "contrafactual definiteness"; that is, it assumes that any statements about what could have happened are meaningless. A consequence of this view is that all distinction between observer and observed, or self and universe, also becomes meaningless; I had no choice about writing this book, Dell Books had no choice about publishing it, and you had no choice about reading it, since there is only one thing happening and we are all seamlessly welded into it.

SYNCHRONICITY: A term introduced by psychologist Dr. Carl Jung and physicist Dr. Wolfgang Pauli to describe connections, or meaningful "coincidences," that do not make sense in terms of cause-and-effect. It is thought by some that such connections may indicate the Hidden Variable at work or some sort of nonlocal Information System.

VON NEUMANN'S CATASTROPHE: More fully, Von Neumann's catastrophe of the infinite regress. A demonstration by Dr. John Von Neumann that quantum mechanics entails an infinite regress of measurements before the quantum uncertainty can be removed. That is, any measuring device is itself a quantum system containing uncertainty; a second measuring device, used to monitor the first, contains its own quantum uncertainty; and so on, to infinity. Wigner and others have pointed out that this uncertainty is only terminated by the decision of the experimenter. Compare NEURO-.


---------------------------------------------

for myself, i prefer the herbert model.

also, i must admit i wouldnt have interpreted capra's model to be superdeterministic, but i suspect his analysis is more accurate than mine (however i will reserve judgement 'til i reread it again), i had thought he too followed the walker/herbert model.

adam: you can see how this opens the door up to QM and magic?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Benevolent
post Feb 15 2005, 01:56 PM
Post #2


Slyly Slythering Slytherin
********

Group: Oversight
Posts: 5,201
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 109



Now that I got to see this, it all seems obvious. Particularly with Bell's Theorum - if any two particles once in contact continue to influence each other, once they have been seperated, it allows for a ritual in location A to effect an event in another without phyical contact at the time of the ritual.

It would also explain the necessity of sympathetic magic, based on a personal effect or similar circustance, since you would be using something which has been touched by a person (and therefore, may still act on them, despite not being in the same physical location), and of potentially similar information states acting on each other.

I do find it interesting that it may not be energy involved to resolve the apparant contradiction. However, more information about what is exactly meant in the potential solutions by conciousness and information would be needed.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Feb 15 2005, 03:02 PM
Post #3


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



yup, i had the same feeling upon reading it.

i'd never heard of the herbert/walker model, but i had had the understanding of this concept from my late teens - certainly i would like to read more about it, but i'm a little concerned it won't be exactly readable <_<

BTW, i would strongly advise reading 'prometheus rising' before 'shroedingers cat', otherwise some of his terminology will be difficult to understand.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Benevolent
post Feb 15 2005, 03:05 PM
Post #4


Slyly Slythering Slytherin
********

Group: Oversight
Posts: 5,201
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 109



I think I'll start doing an amazon search for stuff on QM that the laymen like us can understand. You know, so we don't need advanced physics degrees to get something that could be interesting to look into.

Or check with my friend Kira... she knows a bit about physics, which is her reason for believing in magic (probably the most science-intense member of the PSU as well).
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Feb 15 2005, 03:46 PM
Post #5


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(Adam @ Feb 15 2005, 03:56 PM)
Particularly with Bell's Theorum - if any two particles once in contact continue to influence each other, once they have been seperated, it allows for a ritual in location A to effect an event in another without phyical contact at the time of the ritual.
*


Scale.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Benevolent
post Feb 15 2005, 05:06 PM
Post #6


Slyly Slythering Slytherin
********

Group: Oversight
Posts: 5,201
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 109



Zara, please elaborate rather than just give a one-word reply. Especially when said reply is to a person who admitedly doesn't know a lot at all about quantum mechanics.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Feb 15 2005, 05:08 PM
Post #7


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



... i think he has a problem with his kettle... :rolleyes:


:P
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Feb 15 2005, 08:53 PM
Post #8


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



adam: take a lok at this essay, i dont know if you have read it before, its by p K dick, its a few pages but it covers a lot of ground - perhaps too much, but i like the way his mind jumps around, it can spark interesting links.

http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/inde...showtopic=20175

the concept of noosphere is especially interesting, it also ties in quite well with QM as presented above - in a very psychological kind of way.


i suspect you will appreciate this quite a lot - the overtly christian gnosticism notwithstanding (i often wonder why horselover fat never considered how the 'signals' he recieved would have been translated differently if he had been born in the east, and indoctrinated into buddhist thoughtforms - and what it would have been translated into).
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Apr 13 2005, 09:26 PM
Post #9


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(Adam @ Feb 15 2005, 07:06 PM)
Zara, please elaborate rather than just give a one-word reply. Especially when said reply is to a person who admitedly doesn't know a lot at all about quantum mechanics.
*


Sorry. I meant to say that the problem was a matter of scale. It cannot simply be assumed that a process on a subatomic level can seriously influence anything in the macroscopic world that wasn't specifically built to do just that (like for example Schrödinger's Cat Trap). So you can't extrapolate from the 'sympathetic relationship' between two particles to one between objects or persons.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Telum
post Apr 13 2005, 09:31 PM
Post #10


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,007
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



QUOTE(zaragosa @ Apr 13 2005, 05:26 PM)
Sorry. I meant to say that the problem was a matter of scale. It cannot simply be assumed that a process on a subatomic level can seriously influence anything in the macroscopic world that wasn't specifically built to do just that (like for example Schrödinger's Cat Trap). So you can't extrapolate from the 'sympathetic relationship' between two particles to one between objects or persons.
*



The probability of large objects displaying quantum behaviour is very very low. The probability of a person, tunneling through a wall is something like 10^40^lifetime of the universe.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 14 2005, 01:27 PM
Post #11


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



zara: you are being ridiculous. There is a very clear indication of affects at the atomic level from the subatomic level - for a start we exist as conscious creatures.

this theorum helps to remove the mind/body split that has dogged the west since descartes created it - alongside the superb 'lila', by robert pirsig.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Apr 15 2005, 12:58 AM
Post #12


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,007
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Apr 14 2005, 09:27 AM)
zara: you are being ridiculous. There is a very clear indication of affects at the atomic level from the subatomic level - for a start we exist as conscious creatures.

this theorum helps to remove the mind/body split that has dogged the west since descartes created it - alongside the superb 'lila', by robert pirsig.
*



The probability of any system of particles displaying quantum behaviour decrease quite rapidly as the size of the system increases.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Apr 15 2005, 05:58 PM
Post #13


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Apr 14 2005, 03:27 PM)
zara: you are being ridiculous. There is a very clear indication of affects at the atomic level from the subatomic level - for a start we exist as conscious creatures.
*


Your inability to define consciousness to a satisfyng degree notwithstanding, what is this indication that one (or just not many, because of stochastic principles) subatomic particle can have macroscopic effects?
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 24 2005, 08:41 PM
Post #14


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



QUOTE
The probability of any system of particles displaying quantum behaviour decrease quite rapidly as the size of the system increases.


QUOTE
Your inability to define consciousness to a satisfyng degree notwithstanding, what is this indication that one (or just not many, because of stochastic principles) subatomic particle can have macroscopic effects?


what is the problem facing phycicists today? the grand unification between QM and macroscopic theories.

in your computer (to use & expand pirsigs example), the flow of electrons within the CPU can be seen as the subatomic level, MS word the macro level. as he says, you can study the flows of the electrons through the flip-flops as much as you want, but you will not discover the novel you are writing - you first have to go through machine code, then OS, then word, before reaching your novel.

does this mean the electron flow does not affect the manuscript? This is essentialy what you are arguing, and it is deeply flawed. Newtonian physics cannot even begin to explain consciousness, yet some models of QM put this as the very core of existence - to claim that newtonian macrophysics 'explains' accurately the macrouniverse *is* ridiculous, although QM may not have all the explanations yet, it clearly is far superior to pure macrolevel physics, and to claim the two levels have nothing to do with each other is a mindbogglingly silly thing to claim - or do you truly imagine *you* have no effects from microcosmic effects, do you truly imagine you are not conscious?

when you raise your arm, is that not a macroscopic effect? but *why* do you raise your arm? becuase of consciousness, or QM level effects.

your entire connection to the macrocosmic level is through Qlevel - every peice of sensory data you interpret is affected by it, every act you do is affected by it.

You are only aware of the macrocosmic universe precisely becuase of the microcosm.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Apr 24 2005, 09:31 PM
Post #15


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



Electron flow is not random.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 24 2005, 11:41 PM
Post #16


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



neither, so many beleive, is chaos.

what is your point?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Apr 25 2005, 02:38 AM
Post #17


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,007
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Apr 24 2005, 07:41 PM)
neither, so many beleive, is chaos.

what is your point?
*



If your computer displayed quantum behaviour, it would not work.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 25 2005, 01:09 PM
Post #18


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



LOL - if my computer did NOT follow QM, *then* it wouldnt work.

although its not an area i know much about, i have read that Qtheory is the basis for modern computing - ie post-babbage.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Apr 25 2005, 02:06 PM
Post #19


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,007
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Apr 25 2005, 09:09 AM)
LOL - if my computer did NOT follow QM, *then* it wouldnt work.

although its not an area i know much about, i have read that Qtheory is the basis for modern computing - ie post-babbage.
*



Computers work based on classical physics- namely that electrons flow through the wire and follow certain equations. Transistors work, etc. If your computer displayed quantum behavior, sometimes the transistors would turn on without current, or the wires might not contain the current. Quantum computers are just a dream at this point, and really, for most applications they would not be useful. If you add 2+2, do you want the answer 4, or the answer is probably 4?
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Apr 25 2005, 02:13 PM
Post #20


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



gnuneo,

Quantum behaviour, on the quantum scale, is (uniformly) random. By definition for most, by Bell's Inequality for the rest.
Quantum behaviour, on the macroscopic scale, is the sum of many many many quantum behaviours on the quantum scale, and hence (Gaussian-ly) random with a very small variance. It does not influence the realities in the macroscopic world.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 26 2005, 12:37 PM
Post #21


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



OK, lets restate.

the point i am making is that every awareness you *have* of a macroscpic world is *through* the prism of Qlevel effects - as i said earlier:

QUOTE
your entire connection to the macrocosmic level is through Qlevel - every peice of sensory data you interpret is affected by it, every act you do is affected by it.

You are only aware of the macrocosmic universe precisely becuase of the microcosm.


acow however said it better earlier:
QUOTE(acow)
I'm sorry, but i wasn't aware that these miniscule particles and their behaviour existed in a world we don't live in...last i checked its the one and the same.

Without going all gnuneo on your arse, i think you mean the world you experience and know, not neccesarily the one you inhabit.


QUOTE(shenny)

Quantum mechanics won't make an object suddenly disappear and reappear somewhere else.  Newtonian physics explains the world we live in quite well and that is perfectly logical and calculatable.



But it raises the question of why there is a table in front of you if there should be nothing there but merely quantumn states.
What has made that table appear?
What is the property and nature of this thing in us we know as observation that seems to be able to have these effects on the world?
And by god's name, how are we doing it?

http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/inde...opic=18997&st;=0



the macrocosmic model simply ignores consciousness, it takes it for a given. Further, it assumes that we are objective observers, effectively putting ourselves outside of the observation, yet as i am arguing, this is entirely false - we are *part* of the observation, we are part of the process.

and by "we" i mean our consciousnesses, which barring a revolution in newtonian physics can not be covered by macrolevel explanations.

you say "Qlevel does not affect the macrolevel world we see in our everyday lives" - i say "we can only know OF this macrolevel world precisely because of the Qlevel world."

i think its called a trump :shades:

oh, and as for your computers and QM?

QUOTE
You'll hardly ever find anyone discuss transistors in quantum terms, because the quantum effects give rise to classical-looking physics which is much easier to talk about. But all of the classical-looking physics is really based on quantum mechanics, and without an understanding of QM it is extremely unlikely that anyone would have invented the Field Effect Transistor.

Classically, there is no reason to think that an electron could move through a semiconductor, with all those close-packed atoms in the way. Even if it could leak through, you might (classically) expect electrons to dribble out exponentially, losing energy in the process, rather than moving along like particles with well-defined energies. The effective mass of electrons in semiconductors is not the electron mass, but rather 2-20 times this value; the actual value depends on Planck's constant and quantum amplitudes. Classically there's no such thing as a "hole", and classically it wouldn't be obvious how doping semidonductors would have any effect on the electrons. The very idea of Fermi levels and conduction bands come straight from quantum.

But the amazing thing is, when you go through all the quantum calculations, you get classical-looking results! Once you understand the underlying quantum mechanics, you can pretend you've found "new" classical laws of physics which only hold in semiconductors, in which there are different- mass electrons, real particles called holes, and doping effects. Usually transistor explanations are couched in this "classical" way of thinking, even though all of the supposedly classical laws are all based on quantum mechanics.

The best discussion I've seen of semiconductors from first-principles (quantum mechanics) is in the Feynman Lectures on Physics (Vol III, chpts 13-14). Very interesting reading.

Nowadays, people are starting to make transistors with additional quantum effects (because the transistors are so small that new effects come into play.) One example is the quantum dot transistor. But that doesn't make all other transistors purely classical.


http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar20...39215.Ph.r.html

(i dont understand all the above, but what i do understand appears to confirm the viewpoint that QM *does* affect your computer, and electrons ^_^ )


:color: (smug bastard expression ;) )
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Apr 26 2005, 01:38 PM
Post #22


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,007
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



Quantum mechanical effects do not affect our daily lives. Our lives are governed by newtonian mechanics. You dont even have to include einstien except for precision. The probability of an object as complex as a person, or a car, quantum tunneling through a wall is something like 1/(10^42^lifetime of the universe). QM does not effect us at all.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 26 2005, 02:45 PM
Post #23


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



did you even read my post?

can you reply to my points - i answered yours.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
acow
post Apr 26 2005, 05:24 PM
Post #24


Stick it to the man...
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,875
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Canberra, Australia
Member No.: 30



For the record, that bit up there is me quoted in another thread, just so i don't get someone berrating me about failing to respond or ignoring a bit someone else said or something.

(That being said, i admit am somewhat sympathetic/partial to the "consciousness" interpretations, for philosophical reasons i'm not going to go into detail in this thread, and even though i admit to zaragosa that consciousness is pretty ill defined, i do lightheartedly predict that such a bent is where those seeking to be "the next einstien" should be looking)
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Apr 26 2005, 10:30 PM
Post #25


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Apr 26 2005, 02:37 PM)
OK, lets restate.
*


No.
For once, let's not.
Let's, for once, define what it is we're talking about.

To me, you seem to be talking about random events, which happen frequently with normally distributed effects, which affect daily life. I say no such effects exist that affect daily life, which is easily demonstrated by virtue of the effects being small and normally distributed (i.e. for each effect there is likely an equal and opposite effect). So whatever your claim is, the one I'm reading is wrong.
So what is your claim?
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Raider
post Apr 26 2005, 10:54 PM
Post #26


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,710
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



I think gnuneo is more interested in the philosophical implications of an observor's choices impacting reality, not so much the idea that I might end up in China the next time I blink my eyes.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 27 2005, 02:26 AM
Post #27


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



how is it raider and acow easily understand what i am saying, yet telum and zara do not?

i can't help wondering if T & Z are actually reading what i post here :unsure:
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 27 2005, 02:38 AM
Post #28


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



OK, 'nother solution:

can i assume you are looking at QM from the viewpoint of materialistic science, ieyou regard the macrocosmic reality as the 'central key' of reality? Thus you argue that QM operates on too smale a scale to affect what you are terming 'reality'? Is this an accurate summary? (at least *i* am trying to understand where *youre* coming from here - it would be nice to be extended the same courtesy <_< )

what *i* am arguing however that the 'central key' of reality IS Qlevel - that *we* as the participants and observers of reality are primarily Qlevel beings. We have NO experience of macrolevel 'reality', except *through* Qlevel consciousness effects - Qlevel *creates* the 'observer' who 'observes' the macrolevel universe in all its glory.

to restate again - *you* regard macrolevel as reality, and claim Qlevel does not affect this - *i* regard Qlevel as reality, and argue that macrolevel is percieved through this prism.

essentially, we are arguing a paradigm switch.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
bigboy
post Apr 27 2005, 03:07 AM
Post #29


Devout Pastafarian.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,097
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Carleton College
Member No.: 10



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Apr 26 2005, 07:37 AM)
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar20...39215.Ph.r.html

(i dont understand all the above, but what i do understand appears to confirm the viewpoint that QM *does* affect your computer, and electrons  ^_^ )
:color: (smug bastard expression  ;) )
*


I did understand that for the most part, and it doesn't really back up what you're trying to say. The quantum effects that he's talking about deals with modeling the atom and electron configuration and how really really small stuff will behave in various situations, ie how electrons will flow in a given material. The quantum mechanics that you were talking about before were the sort of weird quirks that pop up at that scale, like tunneling and the uncertainty principle. They are, in short, entirely different areas of the same general field of "small stuff".
Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Apr 27 2005, 03:13 AM
Post #30


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,459
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



none the less, it was a valid counter-point to the demand to see Qlevel effects actually having a macrolevel effect - this is indeed not the area i am particularly interested in, i brought it up only to answer his question.

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post

4 Pages  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 16th December 2005 - 09:16 AM