contradiction Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 yes, you could do that... and also later we may be able to use smaller particles to do the measuring with, lessening the uncertainty. keep in mind, even the little thermometer in a whole lake does have uncertainty because the thermometer does alter the lakes temp. its so small it doesnt matter though so this isnt some new magical thing. the most important thing is that we can never be completely objective to an experiment, wether with our tools or whatever. we are part of the equation, and deterministic as well, hell; thats why we arent objective! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contradiction Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 FAFALONE......... uncertainty does not violate determinism. both are true and reliant on each other. its only when we try and think this illusion called 'mind' has a magical influence that we are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contradiction Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 fafalone.. i agree, that if we did know the position etc of all that, we could predict. IF is the key word that i think a few people missed when they read your post. but i do agree, since it is only because we dont know that we cant predict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contradiction Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 consciousness is an illusion. mind is a quality of the brain. brain is to mind as flame is to hot. thoughts are physical. no such thing as free will. straight determinism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- radical edward said this implies total knowledge of physical laws, and the assumption that all of physics is computable, which is arrogant, and most likely incorrect. total knowledge? no.. it is all computable. i doubt this will get proven any time soon, but yes, i am saying this because i have never found anything that violates determinism. come on, thats why drugs work, and lobotomy's work. why should we be seperate from cause and effect? like you said, we are "organized structures" ..physical and complex. i am accually confused as to your stance on this. because you said we follow the same rules as the rest of the universe. i agree, so then why would you disagree that mind is the brain, and that is why it follows the same rules as the rest of the universe? if you did,, like i said, im not shure where you are on this one. how far does determinism go for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contradiction Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 i disagree with aman because i think we play by the same rules throughout our beings. free will is an not real. i do agree totally that the billiard balls would react exactly the same. as would the universe. causality is causality, if we know the rules or not it doesnt matter. so i agree that if you start with the same thing youll end up with the same thing. we are a part of it though. we are it. we are matter that tries to stay organized and filters out special types of matter to keep, as other bits slowly fall off. like a wave in an ocean. fighting to keep its shape, an illusion of a "thing", even though the matter it is accually made of changes. it is only information. with the illusion of intention. are cells 'programmed" to replicate? or do they just do so. is there intention in to molecules attracting? or does it just happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contradiction Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 sorry, only get to do this once or so a week. question: i read that sound can also be thought of as a PHONON. so anyhow, a wave of sound(i know its different) is a QUALITY of the air it is in, right? meaning, it is the air itself that is the sound. no seperate particles. so.... where does the phonon come in? is a preexisting thing labelled that when it is transmitting the wave? and how about light, and i know its more of a sretch since light seems so seperate and we are used to the particle thinking. but could it be thought of the same way? probably not. if there ever was a COMPLETE vaccuum(never would happen, so hypothetically, just like absolute 0) would light travel in it? photons seem as though they would, but waves seem as though they would not. since waves seem to be a quality of the medium there in, like sound. ???????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by T_FLeX Like contradiction said it would be no different then if a robot were observing the electron, consciousness is not what determines the the ultimate path. From what I understand the act of observing the election, for example seeing it, you would have to hit it with photons. When it is hit by the photon it knocks it in a different direction. The more accurate you try to observe the position, by using a higher frequency (because the position can only be measured within the margin of the wavelength) the more energy you hit it with, thus altering it's velocity. The lower the frequency the larger the margin of error possible. So it's not really our consciousness that determines the outcome, more like us trying to measure it, is what gives it that illusion. That's not how quantum uncertainty works. There is always a delta between position and velocity and this has nothing to do with particle interaction. You can perform quantum measurements without particle interaction and they return the same results. Some people confuse the counterintuitive aspects of QM with magic and mysticism. This is unfortunate. When theoretical physicists speak about the quantum measurement problem in terms of the consciousness collapsing wave functions, they aren't doing it because they are starved of mystical ideas. They are doing it because there is a fundamental problem that needs solving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 "You can predict anything if you know the rules" What if uncertainty *is* the rule driving things on the Planck scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone "You can predict anything if you know the rules" What if uncertainty *is* the rule driving things on the Planck scale. What in God's name are you talking about?:bs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 contradiction: my issue was mainly with your statement that there is 'no such thing as free will' since in actuality, you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_FLeX Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by Deslaar That's not how quantum uncertainty works. There is always a delta between position and velocity and this has nothing to do with particle interaction. You can perform quantum measurements without particle interaction and they return the same results. Some people confuse the counterintuitive aspects of QM with magic and mysticism. This is unfortunate. When theoretical physicists speak about the quantum measurement problem in terms of the consciousness collapsing wave functions, they aren't doing it because they are starved of mystical ideas. They are doing it because there is a fundamental problem that needs solving. Dat is how it works yo' You best bust out some impirical evidence be fo you say my shit is whack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by T_FLeX Dat is how it works yo' You best bust out some impirical evidence be fo you say my shit is whack! chill out dog check out dis impirical sh*t right here: http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise. if we measure the temp of a lake with a small thermometer, all is well, the act of measuring does not disturb this so called "objective" measurement. if however, you were to measure the temp of a thimble full of water with a fat thermometer, the act of measuring would change the tempereture, and lead to uncertainty. But in your analogy it is assumed that the uncertainty is a direct result of unprecise or inaccurate measurements (i.e. distrubing the object when being measured). Heisenberg asserted that no matter the accuracy of the instruments, quantum mechanics will limit the precision when two properties are measured at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 only properties that don't commute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_FLeX Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by Deslaar You can perform quantum measurements without particle interaction and they return the same results. I was looking through that link you gave me, and I must say I'm a bit confused. "Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them." So he isn't talking about our counsciousness, as in our "soul" is he? How do you measure something without some form of interaction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by T_FLeX I was looking through that link you gave me, and I must say I'm a bit confused. "Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them." So he isn't talking about our counsciousness, as in our "soul" is he? How do you measure something without some form of interaction? He's talking about quantum measurement collapsing the wave function. The measurement forces the quantum entity to assume a state but it never has a particular state until is measured. It "lives" in a probability cloud. Quantum measurement is an act of a conscious agent. As far as interaction free measurements go, see here: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/seedark.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 He's talking about quantum measurement collapsing the wave function. The measurement forces the quantum entity to assume a state but it never has a particular state until is measured. It "lives" in a probability cloud. Quantum measurement is an act of a conscious agent. So when measurements are taken using an "interaction free" device, does it collapse the wave function? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by blike So when measurements are taken using an "interaction free" device, does it collapse the wave function? Yes, all quantum measurements collapse the wave function. Unless the wave function is collapsed you haven't measured anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 ok, so what exactly is collapsing the wave function? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_FLeX Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by blike ok, so what exactly is collapsing the wave function? Fo sho, Break us off a piece Deslaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by blike ok, so what exactly is collapsing the wave function? A wave function is a mathamatical representation of a particular particle attribute eg. position. I believe it's derived through statistical mechanics and shows, in the case of the position attribute, the probability of a where a particle is in space. By making a quantum measurement the wave function is collapsed because the potentia disappears and an actual position is resolved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 But things don't actually exist in a wave function do they? "Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by blike But things don't actually exist in a wave function do they? "Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them." Electrons do exist and they do orbit nuclei, it's just that they don't occupy a particular position until they are measured. They exist in a probability cloud and that probability cloud is "orbiting" a nucleus. So while orbits don't exist in a classical sense they do in a quantum sense. Make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 thanks for clearing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by blike thanks for clearing that up. I hope I've contributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now